Staredit Network

I agree, so, what are you then? I'm cynical. I make fun of both

Anyways, on this list, its a bunch of extremists. So? I mean really, we've all known that they've existed, why is everyone all surprised now?

we're not suprised (at least im not) we just like to flame on people that stupid (which is kinda sad if you think about it)

It's not like these people are mentally rtardeded. (That word is CENSORED?????????????????????????????????????????????????????) I picture it as making fun of people that are down right ing evil. Or are at least repeating things the devil would whisper in their ears while they're asleep.

Hmm, definition I got from I forget where basicaly said that fundamentalists are the people that take the bible literally and believe that it's our true history.

In response to ihatett:

Or I'm neutral.


Ah, so non-Mus/Chri/Jews are not "civilized"? And they don't even know for sure that there is a creator, they only believe strongly enough in it to treat it as fact.


Ever hear of "Seperation of Church and State"? We'd need to have a "legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold" any religious "convictions". Which, of course, would be a list that updates every day. To not have it do so would be to ignore plenty of new "religions" which would be, simply, favoring the larger ones simply because they're larger.


Right... and how about attractive ones?


Which goes without saying and is stupid. It's like saying "blue objects are blue". It's true, yes, but it's not something that anyone couldn't figure out on their own, or that means anything.


Or destroy them... of course, you don't have to get rid of them, you can instead get rid of any way of using them...


So, tell me, are the ants "with" or "against" us?


Well, it's your problem if you think that humans are inherantly superior to other creatures for, as far as I can tell, absolutely no reason.


Tell me, how many more creatures would get to live on a world that's not completely ed up the by humans if humans didn't exist?


I see nothing wrong with canabalism myself.


Well, which one of these would contribute to more overall death and stranded people?
Oh right, I forget- only humans are considered "people". We're special. Disregard the fact that other creatures apparently do feel pain and comfort.
Hey wait a minute! That whole "they're not people and thus not important" thing goes against the whole "every life is precious"! This is so confusing, my head is going to explode!


Every couple months, I see a whole new level of stupidity in some human or humans. Every time, I'm surprised. You'd think I'd have learned by now, but every time I simply think that there's no way in HELL that it's going to get worse.

This whole list is ing ridiculous, and by the way so is the new censor filter. These people are the reason our society is so ed up, I think that they will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Okay well i guess your going to miss out on it huh



I didnt see God at the polls!



So there making them put Crosses on their shirts,placing them in camps, and Killing 100 of thousands man i must of missed that part of the news.

"

Guess i wasnt getting paid enough cause its wiping out more then West Civilzation (Africa)



Does he have a problem with pigs or something.

Notice the "radical" part. Will it ever be legalized? No. Could it realistically solve the problem of overpopulation? Yes. You only want people to see what you want them to see.

Besides, cannibalism could be something as simple as gathering minerals from corpses to be used in food, although that's not the context of that statement. Besides, a better solution to this (which I'm sure this fellow thought exactly the same way) would be contraceptives and limiting the amount of children per family, but that's a different story for a different thread. I'm sure the fundamentalist way of thinking is to simply execute all the non-Christians, and those that they deem non-Christians (basically the part of the world that is not Christian fundamentalistic, so liberal Christians are included as a tasty bonus!).



Lol, I thought that was amusing how it fit together.



In places where food is scarce, yes.

Are there even a lot of people who would want to eat other people? Also, wouldn't that just be condoning murders because eating a dead person isn't really lowering the population.

Wait... the guys that say this believe that their God is a compassionate, ever-loving entity, and that they're speaking truth?
HOW IN GOD'S NAME CAN THEY DO THAT?!
Literally.

Lol, this is off of Michael Savage's website here.



That, to me, is a ton of compassion right there. /sarcasm.

Really, Islamo-Fascist? Can he get any more stupid?

Cheeze, you need to look up Libertarian. It's you who doesn't know definitions. It doesn't mean left-wing, I'll tell you that. And stop calling me conservative. Grow up and realize that you can be anti-liberal without being conservative. There are more views out there.

You, like many other leftists, talk about how your side is 1: "open minded to other ideas". You also talk about your side being 2: "open to change'.

1. This is obviously rediculous. Leftists aren't any more open to non-leftist ideas than non-leftists are open to leftist ideas. You don't want capitalism any more than I want socialism; you don't want the obliteration of the welfare state any more than I want the welfare state. Stop calling your side open minded; you aren't. You just believe different (wrong) things.

2. This one is also rediculous, for two reasons. First of all, other sides want change as well. Libertarians want smaller government. Convervatives want to increase the role of religion. Everyone wants to change things to what their views are. The second reason is that in this country, leftists often appear to want the most change because their views are more different from how the country already is than are other politcal beliefs. If there is a capitalist in San Fransisco, however, you can bet that he wants more change than the liberals there do.

You continue to twist things! Begone with your wretched and forked tongue!

Liberals want the most educated and well-thought out choice. They don't want change. They want to make society as good as it can be. And your very radical ideas appeal to just about no one. "Why?" you ask. You think about it. If you can't come to your own conclusion then what can an answer that I can give do?



I still agree with this statement. I stand behind it wholeheartedly. You failed to mention, however (time and again!), that liberals don't want idiotic change. Why don't we want religion to play any part at all in state? Because 1) there are far too many to take into consideration, 2) we are not a Christian state, we are secular, and 3) religion has already proven to be unable to cope with this new era of society. They don't want genetic researching. They cannot tolerate sexuals. They refuse to consider that they may be wrong. That last part is enough to prove anyone's foolishness.

Why don't we want a capitalist regime? Because a totally capitalistic nation would fail. If you want to debate that point go back to your other thread. This thread is for debating about fundamentalists.

I can't even respond to that. You contradict yourself (do liberals want change or not?), and go off on a tangent about how conservatives want bad change, which isn't even the point.

I wasn't twisting words, if you would notice the name in my post, I was responding to cheeze. The world doesn't revolve around you, buddy.


This I can respond to, though:


Free market capitalism is the best choice, resulting in the most capital being produced and the quickest growth of technology. In addition, it's the only fair system (robbing a succesful man of him money and giving it to someone else is evil at its finest).

You can possibly claim that, say, a farmer works less than a computer programmer? Yet, the programmer probably makes twice as much as the farmer. If people were paid according to how much work they did, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with your political nightmare. However, they aren't, so a more socialistic approach means more people are treated fairly. Where is the justice in your theory?

Where is the humanity?

"robbing a succesful man of him money and giving it to someone else is evil at its finest"

Money is the source of too much evil, too much corruption.

I really hope that you are poor so that you have to go on welfare and experience it for yourself. Then you can tell us all about how evil it is. You're just making yourself seem like the greediest person on here.



You fail to note that liberals are open to change (also note that you even wrote that we are open to change!!), and that we don't persay want it. Society sucks currently, so we want to make it better.

Entirely on how you look at it (like I said, close minded).

If you want the overall population to succeed and such, then communism would be the best choice. However, I don't support communism for only one reason: greed. The only reason a capitalist system works is because of greed. The whole foundation is based off of it.

We all know greed is a sin.


*gasp* ihatett was right. That sentence contridicts it self. Change is required in order for something to become better.


Oh, the irony. How can you call my ideas wrong when you say you're open minded? Can you define wrong without giving me a point of view? How about good or bad? Point of views are what defines good and bad, nothing else does. Once again, I see you being the close minded one.

Cheese, you're wrong, in a sense. Neither of us are 100% right. What I was trying to push across was that if there doesn't need to be a change, then liberals don't want change. They're just open to it, that's all.

Warning, the following is an example of sarcasm:

For example, when our economy was doing well, I'm sure the liberals were like, "we need change! Let's make our stock market crash! We /2 teh 1337!!11one!1!!1!"

/sarcasm once again, for those of you who fail to grasp the concept of a joke

Thanks a lot cheeze. You've totally ruined my fun for today. I wanted to say that.

The irony is coming from your side.

Let's look at what I wrote again:



Where did I say I was open minded? Where did I say anyone was open minded? My whole point was that neither side is, and you are helping prove my case.

Forget irony; you are being dishonest by twisting my words around.

Fine with me, you're admitting you're close minded while I've already proved I'm open.

Hey, can we keep to the topic? I see Kame watching it, and I'd really like for it to stay open. Thanks.

You've proved you're closed minded. You won't consider anything but left-wing views, and I think you were in the UMS thread trashing "melee" maps. You are lying to yourself if you think you are open minded.

I'll post that quote of mine again; look through it and you'll realize that it's right.

Prove I'm close minded. Show me all the quotes, connect all the points, then sum it up with a conclusion. Once you learn how to do that, learn some logic; maybe then, you'll be able to actually argue correctly.

Until then, I'm not going to acknolwedge your posts. Have a nice day.

But for now, here is my proof:

Point of view, biased. Prove it being ridiculous rather than saying it is (and learn how to spell) and being biased.


And what makes me me a lefty? I refuse to be either. I simply prefer change to our current situation. Labeling me like this is showing more of your close-mindedness.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. Good job. You're definitely open minded!


Your first sentence is addressed above. Your second sentence is the ironic part. You call my beliefs wrong when you cannot define wrong without using point of view. If you can, by all means, do so. Otherwise, once again, I, along with the majority of people, see you as the one being close minded.

I don't need to find your countless posts arguing for/against things to prove it, because everyone has seen them.

You hold a view, and will refuse to let up on it. You are not open minded. That is the very definition of closed minded.

You are rabidly arguing against me here as well. I could waste my time quoting every one of your posts that I've seen in the UMS vs. Melee thread, or the politcal discussions (including this thread). You, like me and everyone else here, are not open minded. The difference between you and me is that I admit it.

You aren't fooling anyone.

A common trait of liberals is that they won't admit what they are. They will not call themselves liberals. Same with you. Explain to me why you are not a liberal, and you'll find yourself either lying or speechless.

Just to point out, there's more than just two parties.
You're not always either 0 or 1.
Your saying he's a liberal is like saying that someone is "either for or against us", and you still haven't told me which one the ants are.


Well, you're apparently one of the only people to see any close-mindedness in them, out of the people that have seen them at all.
The only of CheeZe's posts I've seen are in Garbage(assuming he posts there, I really don't know) and Serious Discussion, and as he said you're only making yourself look like the close-minded one.

As I have said (in this thread), I know there are not only two parties. In fact, it was Cheeze who said that because I was not leftist, I must be a conservative (I argued agains this, explaining how I was closer to libertarian).

However, that doesn't change the fact that he is a leftist. His beliefs are consistent with the leftist platform.



What does it matter what forums he posts in? Read my above post again, and ask yourself how that in any way even makes sense as a response to my post (it isn't correct either, but as I said it doesn't even matter).



Nope, I'm the only one admitting it.

ADDITION:
Hm... he'll probably not respond to my earlier post. I hope he proves me wrong.