politics-free-for-all
Discord ID: 509549100061163520
26,854 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 108/108
@sonicninja what's the what in what?
i swear i typed message
Some books should be burned.
ahh
Communist Manifesto, one of the very few books that should be burned.
Hitler did nothing wrong, ex ante.
The commie manifesto is one of the best arguments against communism tho.
Nah, that would be Marxist value formation theory.
Oh, you said "one of". That is certainly true.
Another person who might be an illegal alien trys to kill a female police officer
@halfthink lmao that's true about the communist manifesto, i never understood the "it sounds good on paper", no it fucking doesn't
and nobody cares it seems
are people still arguing about global warming?
its quite weird that I can understand anti-vax people, etc if they were to write an article about why you should be anti-vax the headline would be "THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCING YOU TO LET THEM INJECT POLIO INTO YOUR CHILD" which, while technically correct, is like saying that hydric acid has been found in new york plumbing
They are radicals who have so much faith in this headline that they will dismiss the reasons why it is important for your child to be able to be immune to these diseases
I would say that they are libertarian radicals, although not as radical as the flat earthers
its easier to dismiss data when you distrust the entire government, which to some extend we do
People are actually advocating for the banning of anti-vaxxers
banning of them?
umm what does that mean? sending them to gulags?
deporting them?
No, I think it just means taking the choice out of the hands of the parents
I think that that is a bad idea
but the parents DO need to be more educated somehow
its just a difficult problem
I was thinking make vaccinations a In-School thing and if parents want to opt out they have to come for a briefing class on vaccinations
I think that works fine?
yeah, as long as the number of anti-vaxxers is low enough
it won't be too much of a problem
if only you knew..
๐
It's funny ... because the proponents of climate change also say that science doesn't function as a democracy. That what is published in peer-reviewed papers need to be taken seriously. Lol.
Why wouldn't we tackle global dimming instead of global warming? Making Earth Shiny Again would help with global warming as well, because light radiation of Sun is reflected back to space before it turns to infrared wavelengths (which are prevented from exiting Earth by CO2). Cover your house in tinfoil.
It will also reduce air conditioning costs and CO2 from it's use.
Tinfoil wouldn't withstand heavy rain, even if weren't gonna tear it apart just to stop the noise it would make (during rains)
Why do people who want to reduce CO2 ever suggest anything other than planting trees?
Trees have been keeping CO2 levels down for many thousands of years, why would we trust the government to come up with something new
I wasn't entirely serious.
You could manage the climate and increase the amount of cloud cover (especially over the oceans and where shade is preferred).
I know that's still experimental, but it's just that people don't want to talk about it.
There is a country that actually has negative carbin emissions. They think it might have to do with their constitution saying 60% of the country needs to be forest or something like that.
Finland is close to that.
Though we cannot get negative carbon because we are 1st world country (i.e luxuries), long distances (cars) and cold winters (heating requirements).
Also, wouldn't the amount of cloud cover natural increase as you warm the climate? In theory it would start evaporating more water or keeping more of it in the atmosphere.
Yeah, that is possible. It's the unknown acceleration factor. If the acceleration factor is between 0 to 1, it means increase in temperature will increase cloud cover so much that it slows down warming by CO2 alone.
If acceleration factor is higher than 1, then the **invisible** water vapor in the atmosphere warm up Earth more than the visible clouding will cool it.
We don't know the acceleration factor. Water in atmosphere has the uncanny ability to be both visible and invisible.
Climate change alarmists run with the assumption that warming of Earth's crust will heat up the atmosphere (not just at ground level) and with heat allow the air to carry more H2O in vapor form, and the extra clouding would not occur as warming occurs.
I think people who put everything on invisible water vapor being a problem and don't even pay heed to visible clouds are putting the cart before the horse (i.e doing "science" to match the expectation). There are real climate scientists out there.
They've also put policies and politics in stone before they even think what is tolerable to people. They can create a carbon credit system, and permit USA and China to be out of it (ensuring that economies outside of USA and China crash, and global warming cannot be stopped). In addition to that, the developed countries buy their carbon emissions from those who "don't need them" or who are desperate to sell them (Africans), and as a result, the unjust climate change combating agreement is also ineffective as well.
And the irony is that the CO2 problem will start to solve itself by free market anyway. The better solar panels that are cheaper to produce and require less rare minerals and which's production creates less pollution are coming. The government should just stay away when that happens, and not require permits from citizens to install them.
It was never about the environment. It was simply a scam to control the voting block.
Mcnuke
I support trans people but then a frightening majority of trans people are irritating far leftists who make their personalities all about how trans they are so I'm like "yeah trans people shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace that's bad!" But then I turn around and go "shut up tranny"
Yeah, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that expressing themselves using different gender norms is important to them. I even support adults taking hormones or getting sex reassignment surgery if they so choose. However, there's something really sinister about pushing the rhetoric onto children and encouraging them to define their gender and sexuality early on.
I think we should be careful as a society not to muddle an already slightly muddled concept. Biological sex is real. For scientific purposes, there are really only two genders. It is generally better to find a comfortable way to fit into gender norms as you develop early on in life, and then once you're an adult, feel free to be weird and express yourself in weird ways. But then I'd also suggest therapy to anyone who's so adamant about literally being the opposite sex that they get offended when 'misgendered'. I'm not a particularly conforming male, but I know I'm male, and nevertheless I don't care one iota if someone calls me a girl. If anything I might correct them in a very casual manner.
Same TBH
The idea of forcing transition onto children is even more disgusting because of the plenty of studies which show the majority of children under 18 who express "gender confusion" eventually grow out of it. Which I feel is going to lead to a massive group of detransitioned adults who will be permanently fucked up later on, as consequence of this narrative
Yeah. I recognize we want to treat children for various forms of illness when we can, but the risk of harm being done with this treatment makes it evil to give HRT to kids.
A kid wants to crossdress? Odd, but okay. Make sure they can still fit in and not be bullied but maybe allow it at home. Let them be themselves when it's reasonable to do so, but prior to 18 or even 21 you really can't say that a child has the foresight to know they're transgender, much less prescribe treatment that could harm a confused young person.
Remember when we pushed things like wear and dress however you like, doesn't matter if people think you are weird you do you? It worked well enough since there are effeminate men and masculine women who are comfortable a men and women, but it also covered people who just liked dressing up as the opposite sex for shits and giggles but also covered trans people? Yeah, why can't we go back to that? We seem to be regressing back to where we have gender stereotypes again. not the classical ones but a new set of them.
Just further proof the illuminati rules politics. :V <:LVA:463089670520045579>
Dress a certain way, act a certain way, look a certain way, you must be X Y or Z, and if you are not, thats bad.
drag kind and queen? cross-dresser? these are genders now?
That make you trans now?
the Scots must throw progressives for a loop. Most manly men in skirts you will ever see. But don't dare call them anything other than a man.
some of them are listed twice
>male-to-female
>MTF
>right next to each other
It's really quite absurd. The social construct aspect of gender has people so confused. It's mostly your physical sex organs that define the gender, then your behavior is a matter of conformity to stereotypes. It doesn't make you any other special gender, you just don't conform to the stereotypes attached to your sex.
People like to fit things in boxes, even themselves, when it's not necessary
non-conformists who all look the same
Instead of the old norms of men must be masculine and women must be feminine, under transgenderism it's just reversed. feminine people must be women and masculine people must be men.
i think you mean feminine people must be men, and masculine people must be female
They look the same cause they go out of their way not to conform to either gender so they can feel special. Nothing wrong with that... but then they're not creative enough to non-conform individually so they copy things other people do that they find cute or aesthetically appealing.
female
Poor dude just needed therapy, but never sought it, because *s h e* is a narcissist that didn't actually care much about simply being feminine, she needed other people to echo her self-respect in order to have self-esteem.
To be frank
We should start a massive trade and information war against China because they really caused global warming to happen and accelerate it to the max while people in the west has been trying so hard to keep the environment clean
well we started the trade war. and will now be selling rice to china so....
Eh
I wish japan invade China again for the 2nd time
that didn't end well for our involvement last time
let germany invade china first. then japan can take germany's holdings again
that turned out well
China is a fuck
shower thought : War Crimes don't exist to prevent horrendous acts, only so that the winner can punish the losing side more harshly and shame it in history books
If you want to be that cynical
Well there's some to protect people who aren't there to fight such as medics
they don't protect shit.
no army doesn't fire on medics because they risk breaking "international" law
they don't do it because of their own morality. They don't always do that
Another conservative attacked.
Far left filth attacking him
"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is it's inefficiency!" or in this case "The only thing that saves us from CTRL-Left Terror attacks is their inefficiency!"
We rise to power through a few broken noses, apparently.
So literally, if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
The difference is their are far few homicidal nut jobs on the right then on the left, the ones on the right actually can do the job unlike the ones on the left... just like everything else in life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze6_HtI-1ko oh boy it's happening
Dank is going to prison, (or getting closer to it)
26,854 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 108/108