Message from @What Would Jack Conte Do?
Discord ID: 600051159402545193
I don't know, I just think vacationing for the sake of getting away from home for a while makes a lot of sense. Everyone has a different motivation.
Me for example, besides wanting to meet extended family, often I have no preferred location when I go on holiday.
@ETBrooD you should be given the freedom to travel. But, you have to apply for a visa , to help you have it for more than a vacation. This is the problem. I couldn't , and wouldn't wish ...
(Okay and you have to hold on for what I am about to tell you.)
Any harm to those whom I travel to. For example, the people whom joined ISIS. They were born in mostly European countries. They didn't go to Syria to have a vacation. They didn't have extended family.
They participated in war crimes. Created a refugee crisis. You name it, these guy's are the Nazi's of our time.
Do you think these people gave a crap about their surroundings, when they got to Syria?
Do you think they had an innovative western idea, to franchise Starbucks?
Did they create jobs for the people around them?
See, I know, Starbucks in a country gives people the idea to capitalise and invest.
We have the power to be equals. It's just, certain religions are unable to grasp the concept of the idea of equality and jobs.
Btw I love Bosnian people, it's a shame they don't have a Starbucks because it creates jobs.
@Fryan Republic debate ... What part of debate don't you understand?
```Debate```
noun
1... (a) serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part:
Education is the current focus of public debate.
How we proceed from here is a matter for debate.
Over the year we have had several debates aboutfuture policy.
More examples
The debate completely changed course after Liz made her speech.
The debate about food safety has engaged the whole nation.
She issued a challenge to her rival candidates to take part in a public debate.
The prison riots have sharpened the debate about how prisons should be run.
This proposal will almost certainly spark another countrywide debate about how to organize the school system.
verb
2.... to discuss a subject in a formalway:
In Parliament today, MPs debated the Finance Bill.
They had been debating for several hours without reaching a conclusion.
[ + question word ] The authorities debated whether to build a new car park.
[ T ] to try to make a decision about something:
[ + question word ] We debated whether to take the earliertrain.
I'm still debating what colour to paint the walls
I don't think the official definition of debate fully encompasses it's true definition:
A conversation between two or more individuals, or between one's self, in which two or more differing opinions are put forward in a rational coherent manner with the goal of convincing one side of the validity of the opinion of the other party.
Which, by the way, yes, would completely eliminate the utterly abysmal contemptible and embarrassing show that is 'debate contests' schools have
@Holo Cambridge dictionary are lacking the whole art of describing - rationality and reasoning. Hence the reason why people are struggling to debate. We do have some "far left"; they are known as skin heads to me, and they are also, known to, be irrational and do come across as unable to cohesively, say what they think. Nazis and Communism are both, in the same authoritarian battle on the left. The only reason why the Nazis are different, is due to their capitalist gain's and the dislike for Jews is different. Bolshevik people are pro - Jews and Nazis eliminated them from exsistence.
So, debate is an easier method for people to be exposed.
However , I was informed , about 2 years ago - the Antifa section in America are educated. So, they realise, they are creating a superincumbent juxtaposition on grand proportuons. One can assume, this is to rule, through creating chaos. On the other hand, they just may well be sado-masscists.
I have pondered on this whole , in experience to debate.
If you're a sado-masscist and you don't want to debate, then, your purpose would be to highlight other people's faults on the internet. Only the American , Antifa would blatantly pretend they were something they're not, because, they hide themselves with masks. So for Antifa deception is key to their exsistence right now. So, they battle it out on the internet and stooge themselves.
The problem is, when you look at places like New Zealand. Where they need conversation, they need to build some kind of international connection , to even learn to debate. The kiwis can't either and they weren't taught the standards in schools.
Now we are going into an age where anarchial feminista movements, have brainwashed governments, into thinking - hey we don't need to encourage anyone to debate . Shut the internet down. The government seem to be winning at the moment because, anarchy on the internet - has been the governor for a while.
@Holo wait for it.... as I am going to talk about the problem. As I know that I am anonymous, so, I can speak my mind on here. You cannot put a face to me, chase me around, try to ruin my life in anyway. It is virtually impossible for you to do that here. Thus, the art of debating, would perhaps be more advanced with all types of conclusions. Without people being deemed as hyposensitive. Just read this part of "Fudgebooks", new policies;
***Defining Hate Speech***
"The first challenge in stopping hate speech is defining its boundaries.
People come to Facebook to share their experiences and opinions, and topics like gender, nationality, ethnicity and other personal characteristics are often a part of that discussion. People might disagree about the wisdom of a country’s foreign policy or the morality of certain religious teachings, and we want them to be able to debate those issues on Facebook. But when does something cross the line into hate speech?
Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their “protected characteristics” — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease."
Albeit, I have argued before that we are not able to cultivate debate on the internet. Certainly not to these, harmonious levels like you see here on discord. Because, your job, face, where you live, e.t.c. is all exposed on facebook. When people finally are able to conduct a debate and really entertain the idea of arguing both sides of the coin. There we have rationality.
But at what point, in those word's, do you see a rational behaviour outcome?
what the fuck? @TEABAG!!!
Also hate speech doesn't exist, just really spicy insults
@Holo, when people try to control the content of what you mean, they miss the point. I think the point, and the plot of Facebook has been lost. And they just consider you as a, scientific social experiment.
Debates are only really useful for convincing the croud that is listening anyway.
Debating someone with the purpose of changing their mind doesnt work.
Yep. You can only change an open mind.
If someone is so full of energy that they're defending their viewpoints in a proper debate, then they're almost guaranteed to stick to their views.
my definition of terrorism - someone who commits violence, on behalf of a political organization with a history of violence
so, lone wolf shooters are not terrorists in my opinion... anyone agree or disagree? it would make ANTIFA terrrorists
no
lone wolfs are terrorists, the only necessary qualifier is the use of terror against a community to push an agenda
There are different *types* of terrorists depending on the backing, but it is as Coolitic said. Regarding AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group, however, I tend to agree
I think the name of terrorist implies the definition
AntiFa is simply a terrorist group because they admit to using fear as a tactic
They intend to give terror and fear to drive of their opponents they deem "fascists."
@Coolitic the problem is govt uses it as an excuse to tack on extra charges... you commit any kind of felony, next thing you know, you're a terrorist
that doesn't change the definition of a terrorist
who created the definition?
whats wrong with just calling lone wolves, commiters of massacre?
they are, they're also terrorists
the solution is to prevent govts from using the label of terrorist to remove your rights
i dont see why we need to expand the definition of terrorist - it's authoritarian, it's using language for authoritarian ends, therefore orwellian
that is the default definition of terrorist, it's in the fucking name retard
i think the way to prevent govt removing rights is to more strictly and rigidly define the definition of terrorist
instead of actually telling the govt that they dont get to use that label as an excuse to remove your rights, you have the retarded idea of changing the definition?
someone who makes people feel scared shouldn't be it... it's too vague