yerp

Times change...

"This was not our destiny... "

Say "aye" if you're for the Horde

rip 8 pool

http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/281470/world-of-warcraft-corgi-pup.jpg

corgi pup

How does one make a @ with a spanish keyboard :/

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/86/54/b1/8654b14d4f034bf8680409e80795df79.jpg

Fur deh Hurde

that's hot

sausage

All hail lord Cthulhu

Blrgalglfurgalagalagurlfklakeraxkslergargurlaflurgmerfv...
praise to the only lord, the real lord, the best lord.

nerds unite

anyone up for a dugneon?

dat "dugneon" tho

Selio... Stelio Cantos, Stelio.. and Luiz.

seemz legit

oh hey, waddup dudes

<:howdy:603569760722092062>

i'm doin alright

how about yourself

: )

woAH

Market anarchy gang

imagine actually deepthroating boots

wait i just saw rule 11 what even is satanism

<a:shoot:658531118319927351>

life is temporary, ass is forever

imagine actually projecting this hard

probably for greater context, sure

authoritarianism is for when you have daddy issues

lol

> In my opinion the degeneracy we see is due to the modern welfare state.
@𝕯𝖎𝖆𝖒𝖔𝖓𝖉 𝕯𝖚𝖈𝖐 no state no degeneracy <:woke:666396425504030762>

> middle ground le skeptic centrist lmao
@21ooAB better than just authoritarianism

> Totalitaranism is good
@21ooAB no

> Human rights big dumb
@21ooAB yes

> the core of Libertarianism is "if it doesn't hurt me than I don't care"
> the thing is that it misses the damage on a societal level
@Ronin who gives a fuck about "society" <:Spook:683345576393441314>

> what's the libertarian argument against child drag queens?
@Ronin what's the authoritarian one?

ok

k it says i can't change my nickname

ty

> Do any of you like turnips?
@Punishmented i've never had turnips

turnips

lmao

on the normal political compass i basically got center lib

spekr is a bit wack but whatever

i'm partly conflicted, as i think if a vote only affects you then you should have a say, but on society as a whole, somone a thousand miles away could influence who i'm governed by and that shit sucks

you can various degrees of authoritarian, yeah

i mean, it sounds like it's in the middle east and so it probably sounded real

> @Ronin So did people want to bomb Aladdin or not?
@DrRisen the point was that they thought it was a real place

if i understand correctly

<:stalinapproves:658531116336283664>

but also, problems i see with having only politically conscious individuals vote is ensuring that they actually are politically educated. This has its own problems of who is doing the educating, what kinds of tests are in place to make sure people are politically aware and know who made those tests and how they're educated, etc.

damn aladdin smh my head

damn, ok authoritarian

damn i have been ruined

how will i recover

ok, bottom

lol

they're eternal bottoms, always wanting to get slammed by the state

no

>strong society

my general answer, i suppose, would be no.

i say 'general' because a "strong society" could be anything.

Oatmeal may technically have the same crop that’s used in normal cereal but I’d never call it a cereal.

> Satanism
Whatever flavor of Paganism he might follow is, in all likelihood, no way a form of LaVey's Satanism. I can only assume you're using the term "Satanism" as a form of catch all pejorative for all things bad which would be fine if you clarified that.

I suppose there exists some forms of Satanism that are heavily influenced by classical pagan thought and mythology and perhaps that's theoretically possible.

It has never been a defined religion until LaVey did so. Any use of "Satanism" before has only been a term levied at others to bring them down and to discredit them. If you're a Setian, afaik they probably see early Egyptian religion and depictions of Set as the earliest forms of "Satanism," but in the modern day it's not really the case.

I'd recommend reading *The Satanic Bible* if you really want to know more about the most popular form of Satanism today.

Yes, clearly it was used to associate those with *Satan,* probably at the time the worst guy ever. That still isn't a defined, proper religion and philosophy as what they thought of as evil could have been seen as good to others. Obviously from their perspective they would deem those evil as Satanists, but those *deemed* Satanists would have very different opinions on what was considered evil.

Others could have just as easily claimed the other side to be Satanists, showing that it's not so much a specific idea or thing, rather, it was just a word to say, succinctly, *you are evil.*

Which hardly constitutes any form of actual beliefs.

It's only a definition on what is *actually* evil if you assume that those who used it actually knew what was evil, which isn't a very rational take.

I'm sure you think that they were correct, and that's fine.

I can't believe that they were correct because I'm not a Christian (The term "Satanism" mostly being used by Christians in medieval history).

I don't think they were wrong simply *because* others disagreed. I don't think the Christians were correct because I'm not a Christian and thus the moral opinions of those accused of Satanism are just as valid to me as the Christian's opinions were.

To be clear, again, I think it's fine that you agree with the Christian's opinions on what is moral and immoral.

I think at the time, sure, Satanism wasn't what it is today. So for the Christians at the time calling someone a devil worshipper or a Satanist would actually make sense. My problem is just that the religions of today that can be classified as "Satanism" could get lumped in with the early Christian sense of the word and would just cause confusion if such a definition were used without clarification.

Oh, sure, LaVey's Satanism is absolutely evil from a Christian perspective.

Honestly? I thinking it's probably not wrong for someone like you to call it such.

No, not personally.

yeah it kinda depends

it's not necessary for advancement, it's just been our excuse so far

> War has caused human technology to develop very fast when it presented
@NJT44 yeah that's true

advancement for advancement's sake is actually stupid

maybe conflict in the vague general sense but "war" specifically probably will only continue to exist with the existence of the state

or some other centralized authority

are we? lol

@Milk well nothing is inherently wrong

literally yes

also

i'm all for defending yourself, that shit is awesome

idk, humanity is probably gonna kill itself just because of the vastness of our population and global expanse

ye

it's fine. i don't think it's bad necessarily