Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting Will Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Yakamaru

The Political Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sylvix95 said:

Whatever you guys opinions is, I'll let you know that I disagree.

Murder should be illegal.

Rape is not ok.

Mass murder shouldn't be a national sport.

The Holocaust happened.

The Armenian Genocide obviously happened.

Islam is a peaceful religion.

The Caliphate before the 1st Crusades were peaceful expansions.

Hitler was a bad boy.

Stalin was also a bad boy.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P 

 

If you have no intention of adding anything to the debate//discussion/thread, please stay away from the thread, as you are NOT contributing. Trolling won't get you anywhere, nor will I allow you to steer the thread offtopic.

Edited by Yakamaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for a politic thread, the fact that you "don't allow me" to do what the hell I want isn't really democratic, heh.

also, don't tell me what to do, thank you @Yakamaru.

 

One last thing, we are litterally in the off-topic zone.

Edited by sylvix95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25.3.2017 at 2:23 PM, Yakamaru said:

The thing is, Donald Trump is NOT evil. At worst, he's only going to be able to do very little during his 8 years of Presidency. 

At worst he will fuck up climate change projects. rip netherlands.

Or make prejudice socially acceptable. bad mexicans. cya muslims, we dont want you.

Or make the rich richer and destroy the poor. obamacare? nah.. and since we allready allow people to play with their lifes, we also can allow russian roulett in casinos.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobfrog said:

At worst he will fuck up climate change projects. rip netherlands.

Countries by Co2 emissions

America only sits on 14.5% of the total emissions. If you intend to blame anyone, blame the world. If you want to blame a country, blame China, who are sitting at over 2x that of America. If you had been paying attention, aka, watched some of his speeches, press conferences by Sean Spicer, etc, you'd know that climate change is no longer on the list of top priorities.

American electricity companies are currently not able to provide cheap electricity to their citizens, because of the moronic policies put in place by the previous administration. Some areas are seeing $.20, even $.25 per kW. How is that acceptable for the sake of a tiny reduction in emissions?

Also. The Netherlands have NOTHING to do with America. America does not control your country's economy, nor what you are to fund.

2 hours ago, bobfrog said:

Or make prejudice socially acceptable. bad mexicans. cya muslims, we dont want you.

Huh?

1. Make prejudice socially acceptable? Going to have to ask for some actual evidence of that shit, mate. And don't bother citing CNN, BBC, MSNBC, etc. They are full of shit, and have been full of shit since the start

2. He is talking about illegal aliens from Mexico. They shouldn't be in America in the first place

3. Only 7 countries are on that list. And it's a temporary TRAVEL ban. If you had bothered to look it up, it's not a Muslim ban. The majority of Muslims do NOT come from those countries

Quote

Or make the rich richer and destroy the poor. obamacare? nah.. and since we allready allow people to play with their lifes, we also can allow russian roulett in casinos.

I am pretty sure I've said previously in this thread, that implementing things takes time. The Trump administration is currently leaving it as it is, so they can formulate a good plan for repealing ACA.

They are not interested in rushing things, as it will often end up in a catastrophe. Trump and his administration want to avoid that, which is why they are not touching it yet. They are looking at it.

The tax reforms are going to take place later this year.

 

Here are some facts that Trump and his staff have done since his inauguration on the 20th of January:

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trump-has-already-created-thousands-of-jobs-but-needs-big-reforms-to-keep-them

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/17/trump-jobs-boom-ibm-to-hire-2000-vets-after-meeting-with-prez/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/03/economy-gains-227000-jobs-january-president-trump/

So far, Trump's administration have helped create, either directly and/or indirectly through actions/legislations/bills, about 240,000 jobs. So far. This number is going to rise as the months go by, deals are made, and reforms are taking place.

http://bb4sp.com/trump-reduced-debt-100-billion/

^ $100 BILLON reduction to the total national debt. In only 2 months. Imagine what he's going to be able to do in the 4-year minimum. At this rate, 8 years of a Trump Presidency is guaranteed.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/14/trump-says-he-ll-pass-on-taking-400k-presidential-salary/21605605/

^ Not accepting the salary of $400k. A month. I'd say that's a pretty damn good boost to the economy. He's also offered to give that money to anything the Congress/Senate wants him to give to. Win for Congress/Senate, win for whatever they want to fund it with.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/23/promises-kept-promises-stalled-rating-donald-trump/

^ List over shit. Completed, in the works, stalled, and compromised. And yes, I am actually linking Politifact..
 

Quote

Well, for a politic thread, the fact that you "don't allow me" to do what the hell I want isn't really democratic, heh.

also, don't tell me what to do, thank you, @Yakamaru.

This is a political thread, not a "do whatever the fuck I want, try to derail the thread because I personally don't like the topic/subject" thread. If you have no intention of joining the conversation, and only try to derail the thread, I am going to have to ask you to stay away from it, or I will report you for breaking the forum rules.

Quote

One last thing, we are litterally in the off-topic zone.

No, we are not. Politics is a very broad subject.

Edited by Yakamaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:

Terrorists does not deserve any sympathy, as they wouldn't give you any in the first place. They may have done something they believed to be good, but their ACTIONS themselves are atrocities, and are directly contradictory to what they claim to believe. The ends does not justify the means, the same way the thought behind an action does not justify said action.

As for the President question: I'd try and only get the President, leaving the civilians out of it. It's a matter of numbers. It's ethically right to kill one or several people to save millions. Is it morally right? Questionable, at best. You can't come and say, after those nukes have been dropped, that you NOW should kill the President, AFTER the fact, when that atrocity could have been avoided in the first place. The core idea behind countering terrorism is to PREVENT it from happening in the first place. If an atrocity can be avoided by killing one person, you should take that step.

1st: You don't know if they would give you sympathy. That's just an assumption by any means.

2nd: There might have been no other way, than killing him along with the rest, would you let him leave still?

On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:

A terrorist does not abide by the law, and you should set yourself up to follow those same principles and standards: Which are non-existent to begin with.

I don't really get what you mean here.

On 28/3/2017 at 11:01 PM, Yakamaru said:

eliefs/thoughts are not in sync with your actions, you have some serious problems. Actions speak a million times louder than words.

This is paradoxical. So you say that even though killing 10 people would leave a lot more untouched, you would still kill the more? Inaction is action you know. You might as well as have killed them yourself.

 

In any way should you kill a person you are the same as the terrorist, a killer.

You are just seen diffrently by the society.

Also please dude stop this. When you are reffering to a terrorist you clearly could omit it and add "bad guy". So basically the way your opinion goes even if a terrorist is trying to fix the government (even if it might be a dictatorship), in the way that has the least casualities, you should kill him. If that's your opinion then I can't debate with you anymore. If I haven't understood wrong you say, let the shit happen and if someone tries to prevent it by killing, kill him. Ok I would understand it if it was for selfish goals, but after your last reply I believe this a diffrent thing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sylvix95 said:

One last thing, we are litterally in the off-topic zone.

1 hour ago, Yakamaru said:

No, we are not. Politics is a very broad subject.

Capture.JPG.8253b463adbd44da8adfab9bcb75b191.JPG

 

Also, never said I disliked the topic, you got TRIGUURUURD over a joke, that's childlish.

And i'm not breaking any forum rules :D Nothing I ever said here is breaking the rule 1 or rule 2, if you think so, you should learn sarcasms.

I'm not trying to "derail" anything. If you wan't a serious opinion from me about this topic, I'd say that I'm really asking myself why there's a thread like this on a gaming community for the making of a server for a RTS game LOL, but i ain't stopping anyone from posting it in, RELAX DUDE xD, at least you made my day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

1st: You don't know if they would give you sympathy. That's just an assumption by any means.

2nd: There might have been no other way, than killing him along with the rest, would you let him leave still?

A terrorist is a terrorist for a reason. Sympathy/empathy have nothing to do with it. They are defined as an extremely dangerous individual, and in the vast majority of cases, as this increase in terrorism across Europe is clearly showing, is justified. You either kill, or be killed.

If I wouldn't be able to kill him/her in time before launching those nukes, I would have killed those civilians alongside the President. Morally and ethically it's wrong to murder. Morally and ethically it's right to save millions over a thousand people. Again, it's a matter of numbers. It's a choice you're going to have to live with your entire life. Or you can just sit on your ass, and let millions die, going by how you word your shit.

40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

I don't really get what you mean here.

Terrorists don't follow the laws in the first place. Why should you bind yourself by the laws, when they don't? Their principles are per definition, "by any means necessary".

40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

This is paradoxical. So you say that even though killing 10 people would leave a lot more untouched, you would still kill the more? Inaction is action you know. You might as well as have killed them yourself.

Are you implying something here? Inaction makes you indirectly an accomplice, assisting a terrorist. According to the law, if you do not take action, you are aiding a criminal. And according to the law, letting the terrorist escape, despite you having the ability to stop him/her, makes you an accomplice, applicable to be thrown in jail.

40 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

In any way should you kill a person you are the same as the terrorist, a killer.

You are just seen diffrently by the society.

Also please dude stop this. When you are reffering to a terrorist you clearly could omit it and add "bad guy". So basically the way your opinion goes even if a terrorist is trying to fix the government (even if it might be a dictatorship), in the way that has the least casualities, you should kill him. If that's your opinion then I can't debate with you anymore. If I haven't understood wrong you say, let the shit happen and if someone tries to prevent it by killing, kill him. Ok I would understand it if it was for selfish goals, but after your last reply I believe this a diffrent thing now.

Murder in self-defense. Murder to prevent other murders. Context is important, which you seem to ignore. If you had the power to prevent further murders, by killing someone, would you take that step? Sane people would do that, despite their beliefs. Being a fanatical pacifist is not going to make the problems go away.

From the looks of it, I'd say you're a terrorist sympathiser, going by your careful wording. Either that, or you're a fanatical pacifist, who wouldn't even take up a gun in self-defense if it meant killing someone else.

Bad guy? A terrorist, PER DEFINITION, is bad/evil. Committing atrocities, genocide, mass murder, bombings, suicide bombings, etc.

Again, I give zero fucks about their actual beliefs. Their actions speak a million times more than their words/beliefs.

11 minutes ago, sylvix95 said:

Capture.JPG.8253b463adbd44da8adfab9bcb75b191.JPG

 

Also, never said I disliked the topic, you got TRIGUURUURD over a joke, that's childlish.

And i'm not breaking any forum rules :D Nothing I ever said here is breaking the rule 1 or rule 2, if you think so, you should learn sarcasms.

I'm not trying to "derail" anything. If you wan't a serious opinion from me about this topic, I'd say that I'm really asking myself why there's a thread like this on a gaming community for the making of a server for a RTS game LOL, but i ain't stopping anyone from posting it in, RELAX DUDE xD, at least you made my day

I made it in Off-Topic because we don't have a subforum for non-game debates/discussion. Several people have already shown their interest in talking about politics, which you clearly are not. I do not go into threads you have created, attempting to derail them into off-topic crap according to the posts' intent.

Yes, this is an RTS forum. Yes, this is posted in Off-Topic. Off-Topic, as in non-game related.

Edited by Yakamaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:

From the looks of it, I'd say you're a terrorist sympathiser, going by your careful wording. Either that, or you're a fanatical pacifist, who wouldn't even take up a gun in self-defense if it meant killing someone else.

Bad guy? A terrorist, PER DEFINITION, is bad/evil.

I'm not a terrorist sympathiser. Do you think I sympathise with ISIS and suicidal bombers? I'm just trying to say that I'm still standing on the possibility there might be a good one. In definition, I try to not be preoccupied. And I tried to convince you to not be but it seems I cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

I'm not a terrorist sympathiser. Do you think I sympathise with ISIS and suicidal bombers? I'm just trying to say that I'm still standing on the possibility there might be a good one. In definition, I try to not be preoccupied. And I tried to convince you to not be but it seems I cannot.

Going by your wording, I assumed you were. You not taking action when you should've taken action says a whole lot more about you than it does me, mate.

I am not going to spare someone sympathy when they quite literally blew someone up. That is NOT how sympathy work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look up terrorist definition up here:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorist?s=t

 

 

2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:

Being a fanatical pacifist is not going to make the problems go away.

I think this is an insult, Im not a fucking fanatical pacifist, and stop addressing me with things. You don't seem to understand one bit of my ideology, and make me out for something else, quite a few times now.

 

2 hours ago, Yakamaru said:

Murder to prevent other murders. Context is important, which you seem to ignore.

You just said it yourself, so this is paradoxical, since you would kill the one that murder to prevent more murder. Or is it like math and murder to prevent murder which would prevent murder cancels each other out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good justice system is not killing anyone and also not punishing anyone. Yes you read that right. The only thing it does is lock up people who have failed until they can be reintroduce into society. If you want to fight terorism on the long term, then dont fight it.

 

Also: can we calm down a bit please? 

Edited by bobfrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yakamaru said:

You not taking action when you should've taken action says a whole lot more about you than it does me, mate.

When did I say that? Huh? Do you even remember what I write? I said I wouldn't kill the person, unless I had no other "applicable" choice. To make it clearer since you didn't get it, I wouldn't kill him if I could stop him another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobfrog said:

A good justice system is not killing anyone and also not punishing anyone. Yes you read that right. The only thing it does is lock up people who have failed until they can be reintroduce into society. If you want to fight terorism on the long term, then dont fight it.

 

Also: can we calm down a bit please? 

"Terrorism will go away if we ignore it". How is that working so far? Good, no? Of course not. Only a moron thinks that NOT fighting something will make the problems go away.

People dying to terrorism? Lets just ignore it, it will hopefully go away at some point.

"If we kill the terrorists, they win". Yes, lets just fucking bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich. See if the problems just go away.

9 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

I think this is an insult, Im not a fucking fanatical pacifist, and stop addressing me with things. You don't seem to understand one bit of my ideology, and make me out for something else, quite a few times now.

Insult? Extreme pacifism isn't an insult. 

11 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

You just said it yourself, so this is paradoxical, since you would kill the one that murder to prevent more murder. Or is it like math and murder to prevent murder which would prevent murder cancels each other out?

It's a paradox with only one outcome that any sane person would choose: At best, shoot the fuck in the kneecap, or kill the fuck. At worst, the fucker gets away to do more terrorism, bomb more people. At that point, if you allow them to escape, any action that terrorist does after that is on your hands.

13 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

When did I say that? Huh? Do you even remember what I write? I said I wouldn't kill the person, unless I had no other "applicable" choice. To make it clearer since you didn't get it, I wouldn't kill him if I could stop him another way.

Then write THAT then, instead of longass paragraphs about sympathy and other crap that could EASILY have been reduced to 2-3 sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yakamaru said:

Insult? Extreme pacifism isn't an insult. 

Extreme =/= Fanatical

1 minute ago, Yakamaru said:

Then write THAT then, instead of longass paragraphs about sympathy and other crap that could EASILY have been reduced to 2-3 sentences.

Didnt I?

17 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

I guess I would try to disable him without killing him if I had the chance, but taking no risks, I would kill him if I had no other option.

Remember that? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

Extreme =/= Fanatical

They are not exclusive, mate. But yes, they are not one and the same. Extremes often turn into fanaticism.

16 minutes ago, BionicReaper said:

Didnt I?

Remember that? ;)

Wait. You did? *Goes back and reads*

...Shit. Looks like my fucking brain quite literally didn't recognize it. My bad.

Edited by Yakamaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, girls, melons and other fruits please can we keep it civil here, if you don't want to talk about politics then please don't post in here, stay on the topic or I will close this thread. Furthermore can you please try not to swear as much as young people use these forums as well you know. Please know that others have different opinions please respect that and don't call them dumb or moronic, so please cut this out, or I will have to start giving out warning points (see rule 1). Finally, trolling isn't tolerated on the forums (see rule 2) so please refrain from this.

Politics can be discussed in a civilized way. We do not wish to restrict freedom of speech and discussion in that regard. - Please remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this? ANTIFA acting and behaving like thugs, violent criminals and have been defined as a domestic terrorist group in New Jersey??

Anyone defending and/or condoning these outright domestic terrorists are just as bad, if not worse than these violent thugs.

Got a ton more videos and articles on this scummy group, but will leave it at 3. For now.

Edited by Yakamaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... here we go. I'm a Centrist, but sometime i'm going to the capitalism.... SOMETIMES OK ! ;P

Don't think i'm like Donald Trump, i'm not Donald Trump.  Anyway, I'm not in fact the person you will force Mexican to pay...

I'm generous in some point that I can pay for Mexico to stop Donald J. Trump to harass them with the "Build a wall !".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, July 09, 2017 at 6:25 PM, ThomasMann said:

I'm an ass hole. 

No disagreements yet? I find that odd but ok.

Personally I find it strange that people decide to be aligned to a particular viewpoint, especially those who (I'm in the UK) say "I'm a Conservative" or "I'm Labour". I believe in what I think is best for me and for my society, which sometimes is one and sometimes the other. And that's without getting into how often each party changes its alignment or how the Conservatives historically are the party trying to bring about change, despite their name.

That said, I don't know how to label my views except to say I believe every person should have the same opportunities as any other, but every person should also reap the rewards or consequences of the choices they make. You're homeless because you spent all your money on booze or drugs? No you don't get a free house. However, if you're homeless because you lost your job due to something beyond your control and legitimately couldn't find another, then we'll do everything possible to get you back to the life you had.

Oh, also, I'm upset that I missed the earlier terrorist debate, but would like to say I think the fundamental issue behind the dispute between our members is that @Yakamaru is having a political discussion, with a very fixed idea in mind of the terrorists about which he is talking (ISIS etc) where @BionicReaper is having a more ethical discussion about terrorism and killing in general. I love ethics, so I suggest anyone who is interested check out the theories of Absolutism vs Relativism and Deontology vs Teleology - hopefully that helps people see both sides of the argument. In short, believing that killing the terrorists is wrong isn't sympathising with them, it's simply holding true to the belief that killing is wrong, and that the end doesn't justify the means.

Edited by Archeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.7.2017 at 9:26 AM, Archeon said:

 In short, believing that killing the terrorists is wrong isn't sympathising with them, it's simply holding true to the belief that killing is wrong, and that the end doesn't justify the means.

Yeah, I agree on the last part. Though IMO, if you don't kill a terrorist when you have the chance, I will blame you for anything that terrorist can and will do at a later date. You are basically pushing the responsibility of taking them down onto someone else. And until someone else takes them down, they may kill someone else. Yeah, obviously it's ethically wrong to murder, but morally it's right to prevent future potential deaths. Hell, those future deaths may be someone in your family and/or a friend/good friend, and you end up indirectly killing them due to your unwillingness to act and do the morally right thing. At that point, you have no right to cry over the death of your loved one(s). You caused those deaths due to your inaction.

Hell, the Orlando attack could've EASILY been avoided if the fucks over there actually denied the extremist to buy guns legally, or the very least made it a lot harder for him to get a gun. He were even on a watchlist over potential domestic terrorists. And if I remember correctly, he even made Facebook posts for weeks, citing the Qu'ran and the Hadiths on deaths to kuffars, aka non-believers. And don't get me started on the Qu'ran's hatred of gays, Jews and oppression of women, not to mention minorities. 

I could really go into detail on why 76% of all terrorism on the planet is conducted by a Muslim and/or Muslims, and why this crap is spreading all across Europe, but I will leave it at that. Inconvenient truths and hard facts are very hard to swallow for some people.

Pacifism or the unwillingness to act only works when your opponent aren't out to murder and/or cause terror, by any means necessary. The reason for killing a dangerous individual is important. Are you killing to prevent other killings, or are you killing just to kill? Context of the situation is everything.

On 14.7.2017 at 9:26 AM, Archeon said:

I love ethics, so I suggest anyone who is interested check out the theories of Absolutism vs Relativism and Deontology vs Teleology - hopefully that helps people see both sides of the argument.

I love reading stuff like that. Gives me a good idea of where people come from, despite disagreeing with them. Same goes for ethical and moral ideas and views.

One of the reasons I've picked up Milo Yiannopoulos' "Dangerous" and intend to pick up other similar books in the future. After all, you can't say you understand without actually having read the source material.

Going to pick up God Emperor Trump's "Art of the Deal" at some point, too. To understand that business mind of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious then as to where you stand if we were discussing a different, hypothetical terrorist. Let's say one in Saudi Arabia 20 years ago who bombs a group of people in protest of the lack of womens' rights. They just killed people, they're likely to do it again, so killing them will save lives. 

However, if they do continue, they may be the ones to draw enough attention to the cause to change things, and make the life of every woman in the country for the next however many years be so much better. Do you kill them, limit the number of deaths and allow the regime to continue, or let them kill others in the hope they bring about the change? What is "right"? Is it just maths? Would they kill more people than would die under the current system? How long is your time frame for counting those who would die? Or are you strict in your belief that they will kill others so they must die?

It becomes a very, very grey area when you start trying to justify an action based on an assumed future result.

Edited by Archeon
Edit - stupid phone dropped the keyboard and I accidentally hit post. On PC now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.