108 pts ยท April 12, 2018
I have no part in posting anything but I agree, everyone should tag properly. You are free to not view things as you wish, it is however unhealthy for the mind to be so certain of ones ignorance rather then soak in and learn. Hate me and the medium if you wish. I do not mean it as a jab but do yourself a favor, form an opinion after you've done more than catched a glimpse of something. Imagine someone seeing a moment from your life you regret and think that's all you are as a person.
No, I am not, I am simply drawing a comparison. I have doubts that it is as bad in the UK as it is in the US and that the access to firearms is the reason the they're less prone to kill, however, if true it would be unfortunate. The statistics speak for themselves whether training makes a difference in the actions and outlook of the police in any given country, it really isn't an opinion. Look at Scandinavia, Norway especially as a good example for how the relationship with the cops could be.
Again, no. Police here in Europe are actually educated and trained in de-escelation instead of using force to deal with every situation and seldom kill let alone pull their gun, in some countries they do not even carry firearms. Whether the systems in place are oppressive or exploitative is another matter entirely, all I'm saying is that the abolition of the police is one of the dumbest ideas as some form of enforcement of the law is necessary. You have an American problem, not a police problem.
Now thats a statement, a poorly thought out one. Look at pretty much any European country and see how it's not an issue there. Crazy how when you have standards for what you need to understand, learn and who you are as a person to be allowed to work as police, it works. Don't blame the occupation as a whole because of your McDonald's politics.
I'm baffled every time I encounter people so inept in extrospection. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, maybe you've seen clips from some popular shounen trash and thought that was all anime and that it's for children like most western cartoons, classic take from those clueless of the medium. It's like tv, film and music, it varies greatly. That it has no soul is so utterly ignorant it's almost funny, animators have sacrificed their health, low salary and time for the art form.
Nice admission of not being able to separate art from reality and not understanding the context and the culture from which said art originates from and simply pushing your modern western sensibilities. It says more about you than the people you are referring to.
It's unfortunate, a lot of people live in a vacuum without realising and when that stability is threatened with things that do not align with the view from their tinted window it's met with hostility and emotion rather than discussion and thought. As such the echo chamber contractors have been very busy, throughout time, yes, but in recent times especially. It's the same no matter the dogma a community attempts to perpetuate none of which know it to be true of themselves, funnily enough.
Not even close to the level of the CCP.
You're right, I know nothing about you and since the same could seemingly be said for you regarding Hitchens I assumed that you have not seen a lot of him due to you having such an easily disprovable warped image of him. You're also obviously retreating, you're free to do so. I do hope for your own sake that you reevaluate your thought process to perhaps a more fact based, I gain nothing from that so I also hope you know I'm sincere in that it is for your sake.
Which is not even remotely what I argued. I argue that he is not inciting violence nor hate since that is not what he promotes. He actively denounces the violent and hateful acts done due to religious teachings. What makes you thinks he invites the same? To compare Hitchens and Trump is very telling that you don't know what you're talking about.
To suggest he is responsible for what you claim say is ridiculous and ignorant especially since you clearly do not have the first clue what the context, intent and meaning is behind what he says even though its plain English.
A debate against the Catholic church where he got a bit heated at a talking point about their mistreatment of the gay community. The right you're referring to I still assume in America, and the far right since not all right wing people are the same, are for the most part from what I pretty religious which is for the most part the majority in America that dislike muslims to such an extent, and those same people hated Hitchens. I would suggest you watch full debates and not just clips.
Context and intent equally so. The way he delivers his words is, I would say is meant to ridicule more than insult and what he incites by it aught to be thought not violence. If that is what one takes away from it, I don't know what to tell you. I have watched pretty much every debate and talks I know him to be part of and never once was he hateful in some sense unless the subject was the abuse of children in some of their forms be it indoctrination, molestation or mutilation, and a moment in
Which has what to do with him exactly? His input was that of logical and factual refutation of the harmful contents and fallacies in the holy books, if that seems like incitement or endorsement for violence I don't know what to tell you. I assume the "right wing assholes" you're referring to are the American overtly Christian variety? If so he would hold no qualms in the criticism of them as well, I am sure.
Hateful philosophies? The only hate he spoke that I can recall was that of religion, which is what, arguably hateful philosophies?
Anything provides a basis for discrimination if one finds it worthy of discrimination and chooses to do so. What do you mean "instead of just addressing the sources of extremism"? The source is the literal interpretation of their teachings, that is then what one must address. Those who would follow the literal interpretation of most other religions would not be inclined to do what they seem fit to, ergo how is it not arguably worse by comparison?
For you to say that means you know nothing about Hitchens' views of women which he has stated clearly multiple times. I am not caught up on Dawkins and Pinker since a few years, but I sincerely doubt it. Though Dawkins has had a habit of being misinterpreted due to the way he formulates his words. Sorry to say this reads like the standard outrage caused by viewing a 3rd party source saying how they are/were like and what they said and not actually understanding the context, meaning or intent.
RIP Seba Jun.
Time and time again the stupidity never ceases to amaze. Racism is prejudice and discrimination based on race. Nothing more nothing less.
K-On!
Eachother. Regardless you're welcome to your opinion art would be monotone if each person found the same stroke of the brush the correct one
You said Totoro was actually good implying Sprited Away wasn't. I love all his movies seperately as they are mostly narratively alien to
I have no part in posting anything but I agree, everyone should tag properly. You are free to not view things as you wish, it is however unhealthy for the mind to be so certain of ones ignorance rather then soak in and learn. Hate me and the medium if you wish. I do not mean it as a jab but do yourself a favor, form an opinion after you've done more than catched a glimpse of something. Imagine someone seeing a moment from your life you regret and think that's all you are as a person.
No, I am not, I am simply drawing a comparison. I have doubts that it is as bad in the UK as it is in the US and that the access to firearms is the reason the they're less prone to kill, however, if true it would be unfortunate. The statistics speak for themselves whether training makes a difference in the actions and outlook of the police in any given country, it really isn't an opinion. Look at Scandinavia, Norway especially as a good example for how the relationship with the cops could be.
Again, no. Police here in Europe are actually educated and trained in de-escelation instead of using force to deal with every situation and seldom kill let alone pull their gun, in some countries they do not even carry firearms. Whether the systems in place are oppressive or exploitative is another matter entirely, all I'm saying is that the abolition of the police is one of the dumbest ideas as some form of enforcement of the law is necessary. You have an American problem, not a police problem.
Now thats a statement, a poorly thought out one. Look at pretty much any European country and see how it's not an issue there. Crazy how when you have standards for what you need to understand, learn and who you are as a person to be allowed to work as police, it works. Don't blame the occupation as a whole because of your McDonald's politics.
I'm baffled every time I encounter people so inept in extrospection. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, maybe you've seen clips from some popular shounen trash and thought that was all anime and that it's for children like most western cartoons, classic take from those clueless of the medium. It's like tv, film and music, it varies greatly. That it has no soul is so utterly ignorant it's almost funny, animators have sacrificed their health, low salary and time for the art form.
Nice admission of not being able to separate art from reality and not understanding the context and the culture from which said art originates from and simply pushing your modern western sensibilities. It says more about you than the people you are referring to.
It's unfortunate, a lot of people live in a vacuum without realising and when that stability is threatened with things that do not align with the view from their tinted window it's met with hostility and emotion rather than discussion and thought. As such the echo chamber contractors have been very busy, throughout time, yes, but in recent times especially. It's the same no matter the dogma a community attempts to perpetuate none of which know it to be true of themselves, funnily enough.
Not even close to the level of the CCP.
You're right, I know nothing about you and since the same could seemingly be said for you regarding Hitchens I assumed that you have not seen a lot of him due to you having such an easily disprovable warped image of him. You're also obviously retreating, you're free to do so. I do hope for your own sake that you reevaluate your thought process to perhaps a more fact based, I gain nothing from that so I also hope you know I'm sincere in that it is for your sake.
Which is not even remotely what I argued. I argue that he is not inciting violence nor hate since that is not what he promotes. He actively denounces the violent and hateful acts done due to religious teachings. What makes you thinks he invites the same? To compare Hitchens and Trump is very telling that you don't know what you're talking about.
To suggest he is responsible for what you claim say is ridiculous and ignorant especially since you clearly do not have the first clue what the context, intent and meaning is behind what he says even though its plain English.
A debate against the Catholic church where he got a bit heated at a talking point about their mistreatment of the gay community. The right you're referring to I still assume in America, and the far right since not all right wing people are the same, are for the most part from what I pretty religious which is for the most part the majority in America that dislike muslims to such an extent, and those same people hated Hitchens. I would suggest you watch full debates and not just clips.
Context and intent equally so. The way he delivers his words is, I would say is meant to ridicule more than insult and what he incites by it aught to be thought not violence. If that is what one takes away from it, I don't know what to tell you. I have watched pretty much every debate and talks I know him to be part of and never once was he hateful in some sense unless the subject was the abuse of children in some of their forms be it indoctrination, molestation or mutilation, and a moment in
Which has what to do with him exactly? His input was that of logical and factual refutation of the harmful contents and fallacies in the holy books, if that seems like incitement or endorsement for violence I don't know what to tell you. I assume the "right wing assholes" you're referring to are the American overtly Christian variety? If so he would hold no qualms in the criticism of them as well, I am sure.
Hateful philosophies? The only hate he spoke that I can recall was that of religion, which is what, arguably hateful philosophies?
Anything provides a basis for discrimination if one finds it worthy of discrimination and chooses to do so. What do you mean "instead of just addressing the sources of extremism"? The source is the literal interpretation of their teachings, that is then what one must address. Those who would follow the literal interpretation of most other religions would not be inclined to do what they seem fit to, ergo how is it not arguably worse by comparison?
For you to say that means you know nothing about Hitchens' views of women which he has stated clearly multiple times. I am not caught up on Dawkins and Pinker since a few years, but I sincerely doubt it. Though Dawkins has had a habit of being misinterpreted due to the way he formulates his words. Sorry to say this reads like the standard outrage caused by viewing a 3rd party source saying how they are/were like and what they said and not actually understanding the context, meaning or intent.
RIP Seba Jun.
Time and time again the stupidity never ceases to amaze. Racism is prejudice and discrimination based on race. Nothing more nothing less.
K-On!
Eachother. Regardless you're welcome to your opinion art would be monotone if each person found the same stroke of the brush the correct one
You said Totoro was actually good implying Sprited Away wasn't. I love all his movies seperately as they are mostly narratively alien to