newsroom
Discord ID: 398858182455459853
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 288/350
| Next
what conspiracys i have said so far?
i just gave bunch of really basic data
My point is that things can only be taken out of scientific scepticism when they are literally scientific fact, and climate change is something that we simply dont have enough data on to understand what is going on and therefore as a science will always need to be under scientific scepticism
this video addresses what you said, i think, Brakey
how climate advocacy has been coopted by radicals on the left
and how climate denial has become a right-wing staple
sorry, bad connection
Treating these things as fact is unscientific, since we cannot run an experiment multiple times, pumping CO2 into the Earths atmosphere and observing what happens
climate is changing, and aways will. but debate is over how much of it man made.
we absolutely have enough data on climate change
geologists can gather data on climate throughout Earth's history
Until theres a method to know exactly how many ppm of CO2 was in the atmosphere at all points in Earths history we will never know, and that is impossible
and how accurate that data is?
and we are talking global temeratures not just one spot.
recent data has 0.5C error margin.
And we are speaking 1.5C change....
and old data is unrelaiable as hell.
we have only new satelite data that we can actually use
<:NotLikeThis:313332634153517067>
explain why do you belive in man made climate change. when clearly you havent looked up even most basic data?
I'll just put it out there and say I refuse to 'believe' anything that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny of experimentation and repetition under the specific parameters required. I'm a sceptic on evolutionary theory simply because it's impossible to repeat. Many scientific theories are based on assumptions and require belief, simply because due to the nature of their scale they cannot be tested repeatably.
fair enough, Brakey
that kind of hardcore skepticism is impractical, but at least consistent
it's true that most scientific Theories which are consensus nowadays are based on belief to some degree
Men thought the world was flat until the technology appeared to circumnavigate the globe
nah, ppl already calculated its radius way before that
greek philosophers knew it was round
It was a figure of speech
๐
:P
There are few things that should be considered as fact, very few, and one of them is the ability for water to boil at 100degrees c under standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures
that's by definition though, not very amazing
Well, yes. Theory always has its purpose, but I have a great deal of problem when scientific theory is stated as undeniable fact. It stifles scientific understanding. Since the theory of evolution has become so widely taught as fact, there has been no advancement in that line of theoretical thinking that doesn't use Darwin as a jumping point
And the involvement of scientific theory in policy and politics is something that should always be under the highest scrutiny, because if the science should be held under scrutiny and scepticism, all the more that a politician should be since a politician is not held strictly by the scientific agenda
You see that happening to gender. How would you like it if it is impossible to argue it since it is "undeniable".
does the left even try to make themselves look good anymore
finally
Gab has added to their original statement. The one you get when you go to the website. Read it here https://gab.ai/Sunless_Sentinel
GAB: https://gab.com/
Wow
more fake bombs....
IS there a pic?
Of the bomb?
Sorry, "bomb"
they arrested the actual guy, so these are copycats?
oh, possibly just a delayed delivery lol
Dunno, he might have had them on DD
It's the same guy.
CNN is losing viewers so much they make up bombs to try to stay in news.
postal service doing his work for him
For all we know
If you read the article.
Just didn't get delivered till now.
at uni, not much time to read
will check it all out later
jumping to conclusions is more fun anyway
<:npc:498572319422414869>
that's a start.
But
5000 trained warriors vs. 7000+ unarmed (mostly) men, women and children. almost overkill. Maybe 1000 with border patrol and national guard
they're not being sent there to fight tho
just as a show of force
... right?
But if the migrants charge the border to power through force must be used
It ain't gonna be a firing squad I hope.
the caravans have never charged the border before, don't see why they'd start being suicidal now
It's the home stretch mentality. Finish line in front of you. What would you do?
Also group mentality can take over.
And while Mexico was "guarding" their border the migrants started tearing down the fences to get through.
Merkel to step down in 2021
Not soon enough
๐ ๐
Agreed
I repeat my previous statement.
bullshit
Should we tell him Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?
Will you let someone who is a literal Nazi live in your neighborhood?
Or an ISIS idealogue?
let?
alternative being what?
Jail him
for what crime?
oof, live in a neighborhood with a fascist or contribute to the prison system
tough choice
For being a Nazi?
what statute. be specific.
I would contribute to prison system any time xm
well I guess we know what your answer is lmao
What statute in legal terms?
yes?
you can't throw people in jail for breaking laws that don't exist.
Not sure I can have it on my conscience to contribute another labourer to a corrupt for-profit state system
@Atkins you can in a hypothetical question lol
Being a Nazi is a hate crime
you need to have a law being broken. and they need to have a trial where they are innocent until proven guilty.
not in a hypothetical "would u rather" question lmao
find me the law that defines hate crime in the united states.
I don't know I am not from the US
thank fucking god for that
Even then if there aren't any laws dose t mean it's right
Are you saying you will be ok if a Nazi is in your son's school
Are in your neighborhood
Yes?
what i'm not ok with is randomly locking people up when no laws are being broken.
We let people with different opinions live in society.
le civil liberals :^)
Laws are not moral
how about we just start burning witches
If there isnt a law for being pedophile would you be ok with thay
Yes, not attacking someone for their beliefs is in fact moral.
Are you saying you will be OK if a witch is in your son's school?
A witch, in our neighborhood!?
witches aren't violent extremists with a growing movement to create an ethnostate
Torches! Pitchforks!
I don't think GAB should tried as an accomplice but they should have banned him
that's exactly what a witch would say...
Atkins what the heck are you saying
If there is a witch in my school I would want them jailed
they're doing the liberal thing of saying all opinions are equal
and we should tolerate all viewpoints
Not fuckinh burn them
Nazi literally hate jews
So?
Feminists hate men.
so do muslims
lmao
We don't ban them.
not really sure what you have against witches tbh
better start tossing muslims in jail
how can you tell who's a nazi?
Not all feminist hate men I don't even like feminism don't make me defend them
All Nazis hate Jews
Not all Nazis hate Jews.
Yeah the Holocaust didn't happen/s
๐ค
Wow, a Holocaust denier.
Classy.
It's sarcasm
hard to tell around these parts
I should've added it in the end sorry
I mean, you are talking about punishing people for thoughts and beliefs.
So, I did picture you with a red armband.
Yeah you are thoughts about killing people is not fit in society
if somebody just holds nazi beliefs, it's impossible and undesirable to punish them
if they actively try to bring about a nazi regime, for example by spreading their hatred online or by marching in the streets, then they are intentionally putting lives at risk and making clear that they want millions of people to die. **that** should be punishable
I don't mind thinking it to yourself or keepkng to yourself
"How do you know he is a nazi?"
"He looks like one!"
The problem methdragon is that when you ostracise and shame someone, you remove any chance of talking sense into them, because you lose access to them
You can do that in jail too
I am not for death penalty
the justice system should be rehabilitative
I am for jail as a rehabilitativr institution
Changing minds is a critical component of democracy. Which means the Nazis get to participate.
How do you propose we arrest someone in a way where we don't make them feel like they're being targeted for their beliefs?
you can't arrest people for beliefs
@Atkins if he wears a hakenkruz yeah he is a nazi(context matters obviously)
@Vigil who cares how they feel lol
but you can arrest them for actions
like trying to get millions of people killed
Because then they get mad and shoot up a synagogue
You can keep your beliefs to yourself
You can't even arrest them for speech, because it's an essential part of how we function as a nation.
@Vigil that's called violence, which is properly responded to with more force
the allies didn't rationally talk with the nazis
Saying is also an action shinso
That's why there are consequences
You can literally form a political party with the stated goal of creating laws and amending the Constitution to kill *everyone*.
exactly
So what?
Smooth, what I'm saying is I'm more for talking things out and dealing with a problem before it becomes a problem
public speech is an action and should be punishable
I think GAB should have banned him
@Vigil fascism, by and large, cannot be talked down
Neither can communism.
it is a natural evolution of a degenerated reactionary society
Better Dead than Red.
Right?
And I understand why there is backlash against them
Besides, if we allow people to be arrested for beliefs, you could say anyone is a nazi and if enough people back you up, the government could arrest you when you haven't even done anything. *That's* fascism
lmao
You are taking to the extreme cipher
We're seeing authoritarianism on the far left *and* far right, it's too much of a risk
nobody wants people arrested for beliefs
@Vigil the government imprisoning people arbitrarily is not fascism
It literally is
don't change what words mean
We have to define what Nazis are
Yeah, that would be a good first step for your position.
Let's go with that.
Not because some vocal minority said so
>public speech is an action and should be punishable
stay on your side of the atlantic
calling random shit you don't like fascism is a bad idea
imho
Hate speech like calling for violence is your ideology
Save me, papa USA, save me
Before Ireland sinks
Literally though, if we made a law saying "If you're a nazi you should be arrested", what happens is you'll have scenarios like a homeowner's association having an argument with their neighbour, and they all report the neighbour to the police as a nazi and conspire to have him thrown in jail over things that are hearsay
Just to have him evicted
@Vigil go to debate
whoops
That was their last revenue stream.
Their only way to continue operating is new investment. So far their investment platform has not banned them (as far as I know).
Shapiro is really pissed with Dems today on anti-semitism
A study from March this year found 5.4% of all GAB post contains hate words
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05287.pdf full report, it is a light read. Report funded by the EU commission.
H A T E W O R D S
Yep. Feelings donโt care about facts ๐
@Timcast since you didnโt do the vid on gambling odds on the midterm, do you mind share your source or is that patreon only?
has https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/there-will-be-no-blue-wave/ gotten attention amongst everyone here yet?
yeah the wave is pretty much not gonna happen, but that doesn't mean the democrats won't win by a handful of seats. that still gives them the speaker of the house, the power to assign committees, and subpoena power.
Andrew Torba's family is apparently getting harassed by journalists. They're trying to get evidence that he's a nazi or something. <https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1057042238893477888>
didn't you hear? anyone who is a straight, white male is a nazi these days
Correct
you know hitler was a heterosexual
really makes you think
Consider my almonds activated
Punch all heterosexuals
I still think those who actually *hate* straight, white men are a tiny minority. Most people who are gay and/or female and even those who are not white have straight, white sons, brothers, fathers, friends, etc.
It's funny they are also white.
I think the video is mistaken re: 'third caravan'. But the General that was on the press conference today regarding the military deployment did mention a second caravan.
This is probably the second one.
@Timcast If you do something on this birthright citizenship thing, this seems to be the op-ed that spawned all the chatter. Might be worth a read. There's all sorts of immediate responses from across the board (mostly negative) which should be easy to find by looking for keywords like the author.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/citizenship-shouldnt-be-a-birthright/2018/07/18/7d0e2998-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html?utm_term=.e7696aaeeff5
Most of the debate on the 14th amendment implications are going to be "on the right." Here's contrasting opinions from the Federalist Society on the legality of birthright citizenship (years before the op-ed had been authored, when this was merely an academic point for debate).
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/birthright-citizenship-two-perspectives.
Alot of the legal debate seems to stem over the fact that children of ambassadors and the like *do not* get birthright citizenship. It should be noted the Federalist Society is very originalist and textualist, so there tends to be a good deal of argument about the issues of the day with the amendment was passed. Put another way, alot of the argument appears to be over the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I'm not going to take a position on this issue (moral or legal), though I lean in the direction that the executive order probably won't survive on a practical level regardless of opinions of the matter.
I'm pretty apathetic on this one, myself.
https://youtu.be/_nLPsFeSw4Y this is what I advocate for these days. Anything else is just a distraction.
Or China's or the EU, or Russia
'twas discussed in <#463068752725016579>
tldr Austria has strict blasphemy laws, EU doesn't overrule them with <:FreezePeach:420711837542383636>
Yep. So, by the same token, you couldn't insult religious figures in Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist or other groups.
The Buddha is stupid.
Take that, Austria.
```Yep. So, by the same token, you couldn't insult religious figures in Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist or other groups.```
do they really invoke these laws in Austria when people criticize Catholics.. idk, but i doubt that. @Bookworm
ofc they do lol, austria is a majority catholic country
the cases aren't usually publicised, this one was special cause it went to the EU courts
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 288/350
| Next