Afraid of getting banned? fite slicer here! Only for EE suitable topics.

[Takumaru]

Ho, ho, looks like I stumbled into an interesting thread for which I am going to respond to a handful of things...

thus by that logic nobody is responsible for their actions and we cannot hold anyone personally accountable ( LEOs neither ). If we codify this into law then all that will be left is a few psychos humping mutilated corpses.

Within the man-made so-called law system, minors, just as those whom are deemed to be mentally ill, are considered to be people of diminished responsibility (the most-obvious example being those whose Alzheimer's became dementia such that they don't seem to remember what they just did from five or even one minute ago).

Furthermore, statutes are not law, even if man calls them law, but would require some rather deep discussion about jurisdiction in order to get this clarified (calling them laws is a mis-nomer but, for some simplification, let's just say that jurisdictions fall under the categories of Common-Law, Statutory Law, Constitutional Law, Equity Law, the Law-Merchant, Maritime-Law, Admiralty Law, International-Law, Federal-Law, State-Law, Ecclesiastical-Law, Contract-Law, Corporate-Law, Personal-Jurisdiction, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, all of which is still of course subject to Karmic-Law which needs no legislation to be enforced and absolutely no amount of man-made legislation can or will over-ride karmic-law [otherwise those «Order-Followers» during the Nuremberg-Trials would never have been put to death for so-called «lawfully following orders» that were in contravention and in violation of the Geneva-Convention]).

For those who don't know, LEOs are specifically hired because they are low-intelligence thugs, evidenced by the case of Robert Jordan versus City of New London where the Police-Department refused to hire him because he scored too high on their IQ-Test (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case # 99-9188). This case went all the way up to the Supreme-Court, but, even though the Supreme Court did say that it wasn't a good idea, the Police-Department had a right to refuse to hire him (based on such a criteria). Folks, keep in mind, police-departments operate as PRIVATE-CORPORATIONS, and are therefore about PROFIT (theirs) and NOT about YOUR «safety» (especially considering how they are always «fearing for their lives» and «I thought he had a gun» self-excusing for the people whom they MURDER).

Police also have no legal nor constitutional duty to protect anybody according to the federal court-system (and anybody who hasn't been living under a rock should know by now that the ONLY thing that police typically «protect» are the CORPORATE-POLICIES that STEAL from you & you & you & I). MAYBE they became a little better under the Trump-administration, perhaps in SOME parts of the country, but we're talking about a VERY LONG track-record of usurpations & abuses before anything resembling a policing force can even be remotely trusted. BLM vs Police is still just another version to me of the Crips versus the Bloods.

I just used that word because I knew it'd bother somebody. Don't think it would qualify as a civil war as there's a difference in the scale of public support between rebels and terrorists.

If it is a war, then it is not civil; and it if it civil, then it is not a war. Calling it a Civil War is like the Oxymoron of Military Intelligence (amongst numerous other terms pushed around by those who are very obviously and blatantly social-engineering the entire world-population if one isn't living under too much of a rock to not notice).

Whilst there are plenty of other interesting things to read, look at, respond to, etc., this is all I am going to respond with for now.

 

[XSI]

If it is a war, then it is not civil; and it if it civil, then it is not a war. Calling it a Civil War is like the Oxymoron of Military Intelligence (amongst numerous other terms pushed around by those who are very obviously and blatantly social-engineering the entire world-population if one isn't living under too much of a rock to not notice).

Civil war as in Civilians are involved and primary participants of the war, as opposed to the army being the primary participant in normal wars. Not that the participants are being civil to eachother or anything. Even in medieval times, chivalry was (often) only a thing knights and nobles did for eachother. The common footman was not above stabbing a man when they already fell. Nor were they above just burning a house down.

Just a small response without read the rest of the thread

 

[JustLurksHere]

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

Saying ACAB is like saying "all catholic priests are pedophiles".
The problem is that there are significantly more than in general population, their superiors tend to shield them from consequences and the insular nature of such group combined with principles observed in the prison experiment (like being in a position of authority with no effective oversight) tend to induce a positive feedback loop on the natural erosion process.

 

[super_slicer]

...just like your patriot didn't.
...actually, he didn't, he started one.

Nah, terrorists started the confrontation. If not by rioting, destroying private property and spreading sedition then by threatening his life. It's only reasonable to shoot a terrorist that tries to aim a pistol at you after all.

First of all, not criminals, but people. What I've meant was that often the organized crime is the only viable way out of such neighborhoods.
Sure, some make it through the second lottery and get out despite the odds, but the way the system is set up, it's nothing more than a lottery.

This isn't about all people, you aren't arguing that cops are regularly breaking down doors without just cause and executing random people in their beds. You're arguing that cops mistreat and kill people of a certain ethnicity because of that ethnicity while ignoring the fact that those killed also happen to be at a damn near exclusive percentage, criminals who make the choice to resist arrest through violent and dangerous methods.

Criminal activity harms society and must be prevented, or if not then punished. The motivations of the criminal are irrelevant. The system is set up to reward those who work hard and don't engage in criminal activity ( alternatively those who already possess large amounts of wealth or influence ) . Your lottery is actually the result of criminal veneration culture and as such really should be removed.

Also, speaking as if escape is the only way to a better life is utterly foolish and quite frankly the belief in such is a large problem within those communities. If individuals sought not to escape, but to improve the communities they'd be a hell of a lot better off. Put the thugs in jail, let them know their behavior won't be tolerated anymore, invest in your community, start programs to turn at-risk youth away from criminal activity, provide aid to those who are willing to work hard and you'll find that the community and your life within it improves.

And that's why some suffragettes that lost hope for wining peacefully and resorted to direct methods were labeled as their time variant of the second.
Also, that movement eventually won in major part due to the slaughter of First World War.

Don't worry, America will defeat this version of the Nazis too.

So, if that happened to a hypothetical person you care about (that is, if such exists), you'd be fine with it ?
Or is that yet another case of "it can't happen to me, so I'm fine with it" ?

I don't form emotional ties with garbage people so it's probably the second.

But hey let's take a trip down the road of what if? say one day a cop pulls over dear sweet grandma slicer on a traffic violation, she was driving erratically and ran a stop light. When the officer makes contact with grandma slicer it's obvious she's high on something so he asks her to step out of the vehicle. She then turns into a complete retard and attempts to harm the officer, brandishing a knife. He shoots her three times because holy shit PCP can keep you going! But it's not instantly fatal, the paramedics arrive and they rush to the hospital. When I arrive she's on her deathbed, the doctors just can't stop the bleeding and she's only got a few moments left. So I go to her, I lean in close, take her in my arms and say: Don't fight the cops next time gram.

If you thought an emotional appeal would have any affect you've clearly not been paying enough attention.

B in no way follows from A.

It certainly does, because you were attempting to argue against western civilization's greatness and superiority via moral rebuke, basically: "oh the poor savages we stepped on to climb up here". You need an argument to support your disagreement.

No

Then it doesn't matter. Especially not as a counterpoint to : Having more advanced technology means that civilization can better utilize the resources.

Ho, ho, looks like I stumbled into an interesting thread for which I am going to respond to a handful of things...

I'm going to tell you right now, baseless accusations and slander will get you nowhere; back up your arguments with logic, reasoning and evidence from reliable sources, waste your time all you like but you won't be wasting mine.

For those who don't know, LEOs are specifically hired because they are low-intelligence thugs, evidenced by the case of Robert Jordan versus City of New London where the Police-Department refused to hire him because he scored too high on their IQ-Test (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case # 99-9188). This case went all the way up to the Supreme-Court, but, even though the Supreme Court did say that it wasn't a good idea, the Police-Department had a right to refuse to hire him (based on such a criteria). Folks, keep in mind, police-departments operate as PRIVATE-CORPORATIONS, and are therefore about PROFIT (theirs) and NOT about YOUR «safety» (especially considering how they are always «fearing for their lives» and «I thought he had a gun» self-excusing for the people whom they MURDER).
Police also have no legal nor constitutional duty to protect anybody according to the federal court-system (and anybody who hasn't been living under a rock should know by now that the ONLY thing that police typically «protect» are the CORPORATE-POLICIES that STEAL from you & you & you & I). MAYBE they became a little better under the Trump-administration, perhaps in SOME parts of the country, but we're talking about a VERY LONG track-record of usurpations & abuses before anything resembling a policing force can even be remotely trusted. BLM vs Police is still just another version to me of the Crips versus the Bloods.

One case in a TINY city (not even a pop above 27K) is anecdotal at best, at worst there's an argument for it being a legitimate practice as small cities don't have the resources to continually train replacements of their civil servants. As for the rest... I don't care if you like the police, I'm not arguing for you to do so, I'm arguing against the existence of institutional racism so this may not be the thread to attempt to get your jollies off in.

Within the man-made so-called law system, minors, just as those whom are deemed to be mentally ill, are considered to be people of diminished responsibility (the most-obvious example being those whose Alzheimer's became dementia such that they don't seem to remember what they just did from five or even one minute ago).

Yet we do hold them responsible, having a set of institutions for their specific incarceration and depending on the severity of the crime they can be even tried as adults, facing the full responsibility of their actions so that really doesn't argue against my point at all.

Furthermore, statutes are not law, even if man calls them law, but would require some rather deep discussion about jurisdiction in order to get this clarified (calling them laws is a mis-nomer but, for some simplification, let's just say that jurisdictions fall under the categories of Common-Law, Statutory Law, Constitutional Law, Equity Law, the Law-Merchant, Maritime-Law, Admiralty Law, International-Law, Federal-Law, State-Law, Ecclesiastical-Law, Contract-Law, Corporate-Law, Personal-Jurisdiction, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, all of which is still of course subject to Karmic-Law which needs no legislation to be enforced and absolutely no amount of man-made legislation can or will over-ride karmic-law [otherwise those «Order-Followers» during the Nuremberg-Trials would never have been put to death for so-called «lawfully following orders» that were in contravention and in violation of the Geneva-Convention]).

You're on some odd tangent here I don't care to entertain.

If it is a war, then it is not civil; and it if it civil, then it is not a war. Calling it a Civil War is like the Oxymoron of Military Intelligence (amongst numerous other terms pushed around by those who are very obviously and blatantly social-engineering the entire world-population if one isn't living under too much of a rock to not notice).

You must be registered to see the links

 

[JustLurksHere]

You're arguing that cops mistreat and kill people of a certain ethnicity because of that ethnicity...

No. I'm arguing cops mistreat and kill people (regardless of their ethnicity) because they can (/are being enabled).
That the killed are disproportionally black is simply due all the historical policies that made blacks on average significantly poorer.
That's just one of the effects of putting people in ghettos.

Also, there's next to no chance of a significant improvement of low income societies from within and this is *by design*.
The system needs their proles dumb, pliant and complacent. Who else would do all those low income dead-end jobs otherwise ?
And 'low income' here means you get just about enough to survive to the end of the month, but never so much that you could save any significant sum.
As I've said, there are individuals that can get around that, but the group as a whole can't.

Having more advanced technology means that civilization can better utilize the resources.

While I do agree that high level of sociopathy can help an individual in succeeding, by definition it's a poor foundation for a society.
You can't build a pack if most of the members are effectively rabid.
I think social darwinism has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[super_slicer]

No. I'm arguing cops mistreat and kill people (regardless of their ethnicity) because they can (/are being enabled).
That the killed are disproportionally black is simply due all the historical policies that made blacks on average significantly poorer.
That's just one of the effects of putting people in ghettos.

Also, there's next to no chance of a significant improvement of low income societies from within and this is *by design*.
The system needs their proles dumb, pliant and complacent. Who else would do all those low income dead-end jobs otherwise ?
And 'low income' here means you get just about enough to survive to the end of the month, but never so much that you could save any significant sum.
As I've said, there are individuals that can get around that, but the group as a whole can't.

That's just taking the longer route to the same conclusion which still conveniently ignores the choices and actions of the supposed victims. Being poor does not absolve an individual of personal responsibility and society can never let that be the case because it is an ignorant and dangerous practice.

While I do agree that high level of sociopathy can help an individual in succeeding, by definition it's a poor foundation for a society.
You can't build a pack if most of the members are effectively rabid.
I think social darwinism has been thoroughly debunked.

That's not even tangentially relevant to the quoted statement. Unless you think social darwinism is " the fittest society survives " instead of the actual use of that term " the fittest members of a society succeed ", even then it has nothing to do with technology or the use of resources.

 

[JustLurksHere]

That's just taking the longer route to the same conclusion which still conveniently ignores the choices and actions of the supposed victims. Being poor does not absolve an individual of personal responsibility and society can never let that be the case because it is an ignorant and dangerous practice.

Any social contract holds only as long as it's beneficial to all of its sides. Once one of them is pushed too far into Jewish dilemma, it's going to be smashed to pieces.
Humans may put up for quite a long time with effectively being treated as slaves, but the prison experiment principles make a spark leading to explosion more likely with time.

instead of the actual use of that term " the fittest members of a society succeed "

No, the actual use is about groups of people, not individual members. It's you who seems to be scaling it up to civilizations.
For some reason, you failed to acknowledge that such hybrid Cardassian-Draka macromodel would have some quite nasty implications when scaled down to interpersonal level. You can only use so much hypocrisy, before you need to switch into pure denial.
I mean, sure, compassion is a weakness, but if there's nobody you can show it to, because you definitely get stabbed in the back...
Those just aren't healthy settings for a member of human species.

And the other path is constant genocide and slave races.

 

[super_slicer]

Any social contract holds only as long as it's beneficial to all of its sides. Once one of them is pushed too far into Jewish dilemma, it's going to be smashed to pieces.
Humans may put up for quite a long time with effectively being treated as slaves, but the prison experiment principles make a spark leading to explosion more likely with time.

Absurd, lack of wealth does not excuse harming others. Nor is it tantamount to slavery as that requires an actual lack of freedom which all the EVIDENCE contradicts.

Go ahead, claim "the illusion of freedom". Do it.

I can see an argument for serfdom, but slavery? Come off it. Even then suggesting the system is stacked against a single ethnicity is just flat out untrue. EVERY immigrant group has faced discrimination and hardship; Jewish, Irish, Italians, Polish, Indians, and assorted Asians yet we see that the less the group engages in criminal activity the better their success on average. The system IS stacked against people without a doubt but it's stacked against new arrivals, those that aren't already benefiting from the wealth & influence of their ancestors, and those that engage in criminal activity.

No, the actual use is about groups of people, not individual members. It's you who seems to be scaling it up to civilizations.
For some reason, you failed to acknowledge that such hybrid Cardassian-Draka macromodel would have some quite nasty implications when scaled down to interpersonal level. You can only use so much hypocrisy, before you need to switch into pure denial.
I mean, sure, compassion is a weakness, but if there's nobody you can show it to, because you definitely get stabbed in the back...
Those just aren't healthy settings for a member of human species.

And the other path is constant genocide and slave races.

Looks like there's actually conflicting interpretations of the term, some sources say that it does scale up to interactions between civilizations but others limit it to interactions within a group like a nation. And you're correct that it's been debunked in the latter scope, but for civilizations? The ultimate proof is staring you in the face. Western civilization still exists, is responsible for numerous advancements in technology, a vast wealth of knowledge and improvements to the quality of life of our species.

As I said before attempting to judge civilizations on the same criteria we do individuals is illogical, you wouldn't measure a forest's health based on the same criteria as you would use for one of the trees the comprise it. We also see in many areas acts that a state would perform and are considered prudent would not be acceptable if they were to be undertaken by an individual; acts of espionage, monitoring movements of other's nations citizens, reinforcing borders where they meet with neighbors that they are on poor terms with, stockpiling arms, developing weapons capable of mass destruction, researching biological weapons, leveraging resource monopolies. The goals, acceptable actions and scale of influence between a civilization and an individual differ greatly so it is folly to attempt to apply the same metrics to each or to suggest that they follow the same ideology.

 

[ThatWeirdGuyWithaWeirdHat]

Joe Biden will die before the end of his term of either old age or of an 'accident' if he gets elected (Which is a big if)

 

[super_slicer]

Joe Biden will die before the end of his term of either old age or of an 'accident' if he gets elected (Which is a big if)

Sure but... this isn't the new news thread. Honestly it's a thread for pissing contests I can't have in the H-section because I'm a mod there.

 

[ThatWeirdGuyWithaWeirdHat]

Sure but... this isn't the new news thread. Honestly it's a thread for pissing contests I can't have in the H-section because I'm a mod there.

Lol that was my attempt at starting one since current presidential politics 9 times out of 10 has a really good chance to turn into a pissing contest. I guess I failed .

Oh wait I know! Trump is a good president. Change my mind.

 

[super_slicer]

Even being quite the socialist... really hard to dislike a president that t-bags the far left and their identity politics.

 

[XSI]

When the left goes so far left that many leftists prefer the opposition
Something has clearly gone wrong

 

[super_slicer]

The opposition to globalism also helps. Sure we should be involved in trade with other countries and even give aid when we can spare it. But the interests of the majority of a nation's citizens ( who are actually hurt by the globalism both parties seem to be so intent on forcing down our throats ) must come first.

Anyway, that's the result of any purity spiral isn't it? A small group of extremists that can only further alienate everyone.

 

[ThatWeirdGuyWithaWeirdHat]

Even being quite the socialist... really hard to dislike a president that t-bags the far left and their identity politics.

The opposition to globalism also helps. Sure we should be involved in trade with other countries and even give aid when we can spare it. But the interests of the majority of a nation's citizens ( who are actually hurt by the globalism both parties seem to be so intent on forcing down our throats ) must come first.

Anyway, that's the result of any purity spiral isn't it? A small group of extremists that can only further alienate everyone.

 

[Strange]

Uhhh, I don't care about politics. I'm just gere to drop a post, mind me not.

Oxymorons:
- Military Intelligence
social-engineering

Here are a few more:
Microsoft Works
Civil engineer
Butthead
Virtual reality
working holiday

 

[super_slicer]

Since soulless requested this to move to DMs but there's no point in that might as well move it here.

Spoken from someone who knows jack and shit about junkies. I've known a few in my lifetime (and more than I would be willing to interact with). Depending on the poison, they can range from hyperactive af (but still functional) to neurotic beyond coherence. It depends on how deep they've gone and how functional they are under the influence. If we are to assume that this story is true, then we're measuring Hunter as really fucking capable under the influence, ergo leaving evidence that can compromise you is not within the realm of possibility.

Because my experience with junkies, regardless of how involved I personally was, wouldn't work to push your narrative of "they Biden's are evil!" It would surely be a case of humility for you to at once admit you could be wrong.

Certainly, certainly. What's your point? He can use tools to assist him with his work. We're going to ignore that, though, as we're ignoring my experience with junkies because, y'know, you're not the guy in question. Your experience is irrelevant. Doesn't matter what articles or studies or whichever you bring up. According to you, second- or third-party perspectives are wholly irrelevant to this disagreement.


Basically, you don't get to dictate what does and doesn't count. My experience counts, or we disregard what tools are available to the "legally blind" and your experience, as well. I can do the "ignorant jackass" bit as well as you. The difference is, I have to pretend.

Relevance, logic and reason dictate what counts not I. A story about pawning functional devices by what I am to assume is a person without a narcotic addiction is simply not relevant the same way a story about finding homemade porn on a preowned device I purchased is.

Your personal experience with junkies is relevant though; do tell how a junkie is wholly incapable, 24hrs a day 7 days a week, of the simple task of dropping some shit off at a repair store while still being able to purchase more drugs from their dealer.

I generally don't pay attention to the gas-lighting asshats at FOX. If there was an actual story worth telling, it'd be mainstream and my facebook feeds would be exploding with it. Hell, reddit and 4chan would have been making that shit front-page news. Absolute silence, bud.

Mainstream media sold out long ago their only interest is in catering to the bias of their viewers, facebook throttles anything that doesn't agree with their politics moreover they're working towards full on censorship of anything they think shouldn't be popular , the only way reddit would get anything exclusive is if a member of the investigative team were leaking to it (which is a great way to get fired) and the same goes for 4-chan outside of that they rely on outside sources.

Where did I say I find it unbelievable that there are people who support either Biden or Trump? I can accept that people support Trump. It's not unlikely. I find it incredibly doubtful that he has the kind of support that would substantiate any claims of voter fraud, though. Until I see evidence of such, I'm erring on the side of Trump speaking out of his ass. Kind of like you, right now.

Here:

Ah, yes. The scandal made up by Rudy Giuliani, about a legally-blind laptop repair shop owner who happens to be a Trump supporter

I'd rather not get into voter fraud.

They're burning down cities because there are real issues in the US that have gone on for far too long, that affect more people than you believe. Just because you haven't been outside in years, doesn't mean there aren't issues. It just means you're too terrified of fresh air to actually go out and witness some of the shit these people are "burning down cities" over. Hell, I don't even need to tell you to go outside and witness it, cause there is a multitude of videos on the net of this shit. You gonna cry "fake news," bud? Pretend the victims are just lying? Gonna call Sandy Hook a hoax again, Alex?

False leftist rhetoric, they're burning down cities because we've allowed the culture of eternal victimhood to metastasize to the point that people actually believe emotion trumps fact, that they are owed something for doing nothing and that calling something racist makes it racist.

I've got to tell you if the videos you're referring to are the ones of people brandishing knives, charging cops and getting put down; that's not racism, it's self defense. You see, your entitlement to life ends when through your actions another person's life is put at risk. If black lives matter, stop trying to stab the cops.

"Heavily-biased" because it doesn't fit your narrative. Here, have some more sauce:

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

It's amazing how far the man has allegedly fallen from grace. It also highly discredits the narrative, when the man who presents this "evidence" can no longer be trusted by the general public to tell the truth. There's a story about this, too. It's a diddy called "the boy who cried wolf." You may want to look it up, take it to heart. May tell you something about how the world actually works.

Heavily biased because it's run by a bunch of libtards that intentionally rate statements by one side based on the irrelevant part of the statement and will even give different ratings to nearly identical statments which present the exact same facts.

Still doesn't matter since I've already given you the point on Guiliani. The evidence exists separate from the man and it's been authenticated.

You have zero fucking clue how bureaucracy works, bud. I've had to deal with government workers. They are meticulous about keeping copies for important stuff like evidence, reports, etc. Heck, they make copies for the copies of their copies just to making fucking sure they can't lose sight of something. it's a real pain in the ass, but you make fewer mistakes in the long-term. You're now trying to claim a government-run law-enforcement agency forgot basic procedure? C'mon, man!

Filling out wellfare paperwork for foodstamps doesn't exactly give you much insight into the workings of a foriegn government agency.

See I've actually worked for the federal government in question and can tell you it is extremely easy to lose a recent addition when you've got a pile of work you're already taking on. What we're talking about wasn't even at that point, just a memo of some guy saying he had evidence of wrong-doing. Every time I got a call or memo with a new task to work on, do you know where it went? Straight to the back of the que. Someone approached me with information that wasn't relevant to my work? Booted up to my supervisor whenever I got around to it and then forgotten.

But disregarding that it's extremely disengenous to posit that it's completely implausible for anything to get temporarily lost, put on the back-burner, or ignored until it was scrutinized more. It's also really retarded to suggest that the reason bureaucracy has a problem getting anything done is the reason why bureaucracy should get things done immediately.

You must be registered to see the links

Nothing about computers. In colloquial terms, it means to "cut all communications with someone." In other words, you're full of shit and now, we have further evidence.

You must be registered to see the links

Specifically, it means you create a "soft copy" without going through the process of installation. It's generally done as part of upgrading a system, so you don't lose your work.


However, "ghosting" is in itself generally accepted as the former. Only an idiot would present a term the average bear knows one way without explaining their meaning. Then again, you haven't exactly given us much of a measure for critical thinking, bud. You're also arguing that the FBI sat on this, despite there being plentiful time before the election to examine the contents and then prosecute Biden? Even after Herr Trump appointed a guy to the FBI who would have zero scruples about hitting the Dems hard? Again, really stretching that suspension of disbelief, Clark. Try using a moustache with your disguise.

Are you mad that I used a term you're unfamiliar with or is it actually because in doing so it was made clear that you didn't read jack shit about facts surrounding this situation? Quite REEEEing, wipe the drool off your chin and pull up your pants.

As for the FBI taking their sweet time, this isn't a TV show where the laptop is dropped off at the lab and instantly analyzed so the agent in charge of the case can come back an hour or two later for a break in the case.

Moreover law enforcement typically take their time building a legal case against suspects that aren't likely to comment violent crime immediately, especially high-profile ones such as the the former vice president and his son (given that they've got tons of money to spend on lawyers having an iron-clad case makes sense). Building a case of this nature takes an extremely large amount of meticulous work combing through bank, airline, company and hotel records which they need to subpoena through judges and not just in the U.S. . They may even monitor them for some time after hoping to catch other criminals or further cement their case. Expecting something like an indictment in the period of roughly a year is rather hasty, that year being one which a pandemic resulting in lockdowns has swept across the globe.

You joking, or just a dumbass? A claim that only stands to benefit your party either way, and every member of congress ignored him? Do you even known what the logistics of something like that is? Someone aggressively seeking an outlet for this supposed "controversy" would have been granted an audience just to shut him up. Once any congressman saw that his claims were legit, this thing would have blown wide open. Hell, it took 3 years of the FBI investigating Trump to get as far they did, and they picked off people along the way. They only took so long because Trump was actively obstructing them at every step.

You seem to be under the impression that they're just scanning their mail and phone calls every second of the day hoping for any scandal they can publicize or squash not out being bribed by lobbyists, spending taxpayer money on frivolous shit or doing their actual jobs. Even if that were the case they'd have to verify the information before they could do so or risk legal proceedings against themselves by making false claims. Let's say they all jumped on this and checked with the FBI to see if it had the laptop, that takes time to get done, they can't all just call up the director of the FBI and tell him to send the thing to their office, they need to file requests for information and get them approved. Also I doubt a man prudent enough to make copies of evidence he submitted to the authorities was willing to meet in person because as you said, squashing this and him would be in dem's best interests no?

Having all the evidence in your lap is a far cry from being stone-walled at every step.

It isn't all the evidence, though it is enough to get subpoenas issued and to justify investigating further. You don't really think the FBI indicts people based on an E-mail arranging a bribe do you? What you know and what you can prove in court are two very different things.

My roommate watches FOX news religiously, so I know you're full of shit. They've run the same bullshit story about election fraud the last week and change.

You must be registered to see the links

I would love you name-drop the people who buy this bullshit as you do. Please, present evidence that it's not just you making a joke of yourself as you usually do.

What the fuck? You claimed another mod had said this was authentic, your exact words:

As I recall, it wasn't just you among the mod staff that was believing this bullshit. Nice ego check, bud.

Not really. You took a job nobody else wanted, myself included. Being the bitch to another moderator isn't actually something to be proud of, either. You're the crew member at McDonald being shown how to work the grill. That's not a high bar.

That's what you think my position is and you're still jealous? I don't even know what to say about that level of desperation.

 

[Strange]

I have a complaint! There's a guy always taking all the off-topic bait in the Academia thread!
...oh, wait, it's you
Cheap puns aside, I do enjoy testing my opinions against others' once in a while (keeps the mind sharp! if only it were ) but we're not helping the game thread's health. Or visibilty.
So I will parasite YOUR thread instead bwah ah ah

Back to being half-serious: my answer to

Good grief that's a hard read. To be fair, attempting to infer the properties of a being with only references in scripture is a difficult task and deciding whether to directly translate the author's words or exchange them for phrasing which can convey the information better within the new language is tricky. I do wonder if the author was treating it like a technical manual and didn't wish to put forth methods that they couldn't confirm the efficacy of. I'm woefully uninformed of modern religions because, well... most of the mythology is designed to proselytize which makes them alot less enjoyable to me.

From what I do know monotheism is kind of unique in that the divine, it's agents and their infernal counterparts aren't so much actors within the world but forces which are a part of the world and I think this lends to them not being kill able in any real sense. Try killing magnetism or heat. Whereas in older mythologies members of their pantheons are responsible for certain events or forces but they themselves do not constitute the force; Thor for example, is the god of thunder but he is not thunder. Of course in the viking mythology, almost all the gods die come ragnarok ( some before ).

I've got a bit of a contradiction for you: if angels can't be killed why was there a war in heaven? Lucifer and those that allied with him never could have overcome Micheal and the holy host.

was this wall of text I saved up after feeding bits and pieces:

Spoiler: I am a wall of text

>I do wonder if the author was treating it like a technical manual and didn't wish to put forth methods that they couldn't confirm the efficacy of. I'm woefully uninformed of modern religions because, well... most of the mythology is designed to proselytize which makes them alot less enjoyable to me.

Well, that's not actually complicated? Just part of a whole:
Whatever humans come up with, there'll be a way to use it for 'evil'.
Nuclear weapons, thousands of lethal diseases we can spread whenever and choose who to vaccine, religious teachings of love and respect used to stir up murderous crusades... The list is as long as humanity's achievements (using that word on purpose).
That goes towards convincing me, if need be, that the further back in history you're digging, the more accurate the understanding of the initial claim's purpose and intent. Like these bible quotes here which mysteriously don't match after KJV. Applications tend to evolve further and further astray from the theory.


>monotheism vs pantheons

That's the whole 'concept VS entity' conundrum we were alluding to in SA.
To borrow from your example: we can redirect lightning strikes. We're almost able to prevent lighting from happening in a region. But we likely won't ever be able to prevent static electricity to be generated as a whole.
We can cut Samson' hair. Or pierce Achille's heel. They're close to humans, we understand them to some extent.
We can picture Uranus, or Balder, getting harmed, by a hand or rivaling power. They're still not too far out from our reach.
But if the concept gets too wide to grasp at all (monotheism in a nutshell), you simply can't.

A more down-to-earth example: hypotetically, we could prevent the tide from happening. We have in stock more than enough explosives, and the means to drill/rig them on the moon.
Destroying the moon? It was once thinkable (Fenrir, Bakunawa...), but only up until we grasped the actual size of the thing. Only recently, can we think of it again, along with a 'how'. Without Kamehameha, even.


>I've got a bit of a contradiction for you: if angels can't be killed why was there a war in heaven? Lucifer and those that allied with him never could have overcome Michael and the holy host.

I said 'you can't kill angels' - with the assumption you were human. Or close enough. xD
This isn't much of a contradiction. You can't apply the same meaning of Death that we mean for humans.
A heavy rainstorm can kill/stop a wildfire or a volcano. Yet another fire/eruption will happen. Water would die/evaporate, yet it will rain down once again. These entities are closer to that.

This is all the truer for any (other?) figment of our imagination.
In parallel, you can't kill a concept. The fact it was thought once, can be erased from oral and written history. You can also kill whomever thinks the same thing again. Maybe, you can plant chips to prevent people from even thinking it. That wouldn't erase the concept ever was.
You can circumcise the spread, but not the existence. Cut a tree, seeds will disperse, some will blossom.

Back down to Earth? OK: we've killed the Black Death. Or have we really? There are still bubonic plague outbreaks, up to this day. Yet many of us think of these bacterium and hazard as "dead". Similarly, we won't ever eradicate the Crusades, the Final Solution or the Three Kingdoms War from our history - past nor present. Much less, the creeds behind them.

A fun example: could you kill Ignorance? You can only learn what you don't know. The more you learn, the more things you're aware you don't know: the more ignorant you have become.

With that in mind, you could 'kill' Wonderland's Alice, or Godzilla or Yamcha(!). Or succubi.
But that would necessarily imply:
a) destroying humanity as a whole, so no human mind can think it up again
b) supposing no other sentient species left alive can think it up again
c) supposing the story and its actors do not have a live of their own, after we though them up

'A story needs a writer to be'. Is that the whole truth? The poet composes a song about a flower. But the flower was already there. And before that, a seed, and before, evolution which made it be. Where does the story begins? Are we actually narrating? Or was the story always there?

I could bring up how Descartes is commonly misquoted: that overlooked step before the 'cogito'
If I need be, to ascertain the 'existence' of anything, who's vouching for my own?
Personally, I find it much simpler to assume 'everything exists' instead - including outside my awareness. In short, my own existence doesn't have more or less weight than the teletubbies'. A good incentive to try harder, the way I see it.
Doubt is only constructive, if you use it as a driving force - an endless supply of curiosity.
Doubt is the ultimate wallbreaker, it's not meant to trap you in a room with no way out (which is precisely where Descartes felt the greatest urge to break free - and he did, in his way).


So, good luck killing succubi, I guess?
Personally, I'd rather indulge in the ebb and flow - sometimes following it, often against it. And when succubi are involved, that can't go (very) wrong.

"Silicon up all women : try and kill small breasts
but you can't change Truth: small tits are always best."
- Q.E.D. (cuz Alexandrines are always right)

Amusingly, I'd say a good discussion, is where two minds clash, and grow/learn from the ordeal. They both gain stronger life.
Similarly, stories get stronger, with every new narration, with every mind permeated by the concepts and characters.
SA's succubi are like that. They're immortal in that sense - from a single human's POV. (that's answering your last post)

No one actually prays to Zeus or Athena nowadays? Yet they still live, if only because we remember, and cherish the "tale".
It's a mere step further to take, that to suppose stories are actually alive, and evolve (almost?) independantly from humans' imagination and awareness.

PS: you should totally read 1984, you'll love it! It got a bit old, yet you'll find many disturbing similarities in the past 50 years

PPS: errr... and no offense intended. I appreciate that you've given me the stimulus to get into SA's lore (I was VERY reluctant to). But I don't think the thread is well-off enough to cope with off-topic (exactly, with what would seem off-topic to the average newcomer). Well, the dreaded WoT is here. Challenge it if you can, padawan!

 

[super_slicer]

I have a complaint! There's a guy always taking all the off-topic bait in the Academia thread!

...oh, wait, it's you

Cheap puns aside, I do enjoy testing my opinions against others' once in a while (keeps the mind sharp! if only it were ) but we're not helping the game thread's health. Or visibilty.

So I will parasite YOUR thread instead bwah ah ah

Eh. this kind of discussion is exactly what I like to promote. This forum was never meant to be an rss feed for updates on games, a sharing hub for pirated games, saves and translations, nor gamefaqs. Those things are allowed because they enable more in-depth discussions of games.

I should warn you though; it is extremely rare for me to be convinced to change my position on a matter. I also tend to take my time when answering the messages in this thread.

I said 'you can't kill angels' - with the assumption you were human. Or close enough. xD

This isn't much of a contradiction. You can't apply the same meaning of Death that we mean for humans.
A heavy rainstorm can kill/stop a wildfire or a volcano. Yet another fire/eruption will happen. Water would die/evaporate, yet it will rain down once again. These entities are closer to that.

It doesn't really need to be, just enough to move something from an absolute to requiring certain circumstances. Would it still not be possible if one was wielding an angelic weapon say... Micheal's sword? What if you were using it against a member of the lowest choir which are the closest to man's world?

You must be registered to see the links

Can't you though? For Christians death is the separation of the metaphysical from the physical, Angels do have a finite and localized form with which they can interact with us in a traditional manner and consequently; we with them.

This is all the truer for any (other?) figment of our imagination.

In parallel, you can't kill a concept. The fact it was thought once, can be erased from oral and written history. You can also kill whomever thinks the same thing again. Maybe, you can plant chips to prevent people from even thinking it. That wouldn't erase the concept ever was.

You can circumcise the spread, but not the existence. Cut a tree, seeds will disperse, some will blossom.

Would it matter if nobody knows the idea? We can apply tense to existence because it has a beginning and an end; dinosaurs existed in the past, phasers will exist in the future. Short of there being some sort of cosmic record of thoughts that we can't access; if nobody is thinking about it and there is no record of it, a concept doesn't currently exist.

Back down to Earth? OK: we've killed the Black Death. Or have we really? There are still bubonic plague outbreaks, up to this day. Yet many of us think of these bacterium and hazard as "dead". Similarly, we won't ever eradicate the Crusades, the Final Solution or the Three Kingdoms War from our history - past nor present. Much less, the creeds behind them.

Destroying history is relatively easy compared to making a microscopic organism extinct, since history requires the conscious attempt to preserve and impart information. Now it doesn't mean that those events never happened but if nobody knows they happened it achieves the same effect. Can you tell me what I was doing at 5:30 PM Thursday 3 weeks ago? I don't remember and I didn't write it down. That information is gone forever and while nobody would consider it of enough significance to be history, the same logic applies. Whereas the Black Death can be circulating among rats in some walled-off corner of sewer underneath Europe irrespective of human perception.

A fun example: could you kill Ignorance? You can only learn what you don't know. The more you learn, the more things you're aware you don't know: the more ignorant you have become.

Put all the information there is to know into a computer system and connect all sentient organisms to the system via instantaneous neural link that forcibly downloads relevant information in some kind of horrid hive-mind. Ignorance ded XP.

With that in mind, you could 'kill' Wonderland's Alice, or Godzilla or Yamcha(!). Or succubi.

But that would necessarily imply:

a) destroying humanity as a whole, so no human mind can think it up again

b) supposing no other sentient species left alive can think it up again

c) supposing the story and its actors do not have a live of their own, after we though them up

I answered a and b earlier so I won't repeat but... It's only supposition if one is uncertain. We lack any reliable information that suggests the plausibility of c.

'A story needs a writer to be'. Is that the whole truth? The poet composes a song about a flower. But the flower was already there. And before that, a seed, and before, evolution which made it be. Where does the story begins? Are we actually narrating? Or was the story always there?

Straight answers: Yes. Sit down two poets and have them compose songs about that same flower, they'll be different because the poet is the source of the song the subject of which; said flower, only inspired. When someone considers putting pen to paper. We are. Nope.

I could bring up how Descartes is commonly misquoted: that overlooked step before the 'cogito'

If I need be, to ascertain the 'existence' of anything, who's vouching for my own?

Why not vouch for your own existence? Why is it something that requires a second party when the first is capable of the proclamation itself?

Personally, I find it much simpler to assume 'everything exists' instead - including outside my awareness. In short, my own existence doesn't have more or less weight than the teletubbies'. A good incentive to try harder, the way I see it.

Doubt is only constructive, if you use it as a driving force - an endless supply of curiosity.

Doubt is the ultimate wallbreaker, it's not meant to trap you in a room with no way out (which is precisely where Descartes felt the greatest urge to break free - and he did, in his way).

Though it was honestly never my intent to take this discussion into personal beliefs about the nature of our reality, I don't really disagree with the sentiment that our knowledge and perception are limited; that there are possibilities beyond our wildest imaginations and we've only scratched the surface of understanding the world around us. I'm just not a person that takes things on faith. I want the truth and I need evidence that supports it. In the instance of succubi being unkillable the evidence we have just isn't enough to support the conclusion.

Amusingly, I'd say a good discussion, is where two minds clash, and grow/learn from the ordeal. They both gain stronger life.

Similarly, stories get stronger, with every new narration, with every mind permeated by the concepts and characters.

SA's succubi are like that. They're immortal in that sense - from a single human's POV. (that's answering your last post)


No one actually prays to Zeus or Athena nowadays? Yet they still live, if only because we remember, and cherish the "tale".

It's a mere step further to take, that to suppose stories are actually alive, and evolve (almost?) independantly from humans' imagination and awareness.

Not to harp but; you've gotta provide some evidence that a story can exist beyond thought or records. Failing that you'd need an example of a reaction which once provided with an initial investment of fuel can continue infinitely of it's own accord, no longer requiring additional fuel as a sort of 'proof of concept' which you can base your theory upon. Without that the step further is just too far of a leap to be plausible.

PS: you should totally read 1984, you'll love it! It got a bit old, yet you'll find many disturbing similarities in the past 50 years

I keep intending to but procrastination. Should at the least buy a copy before the party decides it's verbotten for us to see the blueprint they're trying to reshape society with.

PPS: errr... and no offense intended. I appreciate that you've given me the stimulus to get into SA's lore (I was VERY reluctant to). But I don't think the thread is well-off enough to cope with off-topic (exactly, with what would seem off-topic to the average newcomer). Well, the dreaded WoT is here. Challenge it if you can, padawan!

None taken.

 

[Strange]

I
Eh. this kind of discussion is exactly what I like to promote. This forum was never meant to be an rss feed for updates on games, a sharing hub for pirated games, saves and translations, nor gamefaqs. Those things are allowed because they enable more in-depth discussions of games.

Well, we kind of steered away from SA - though not from what it would entail - but I definitely know that my answers would be off-topic to most onlookers, and that no one seemed to take any interest in butting in. To say the least.

I should warn you though; it is extremely rare for me to be convinced to change my position on a matter. I also tend to take my time when answering the messages in this thread.

I wasn't aware? Jokes aside, same goes for me. 'the tougher a nut is to crack, the less hollow it must be'... Or so I'd indulge thinking. Not that shrinking heads is the goal - the opposite, would I argue.
I'll edit this later after a while. Most arguments call for a separate answer. As much as heated rhetorics are all the rage, I also like to think thoughts are better left to sit out for a while, like one would do for a good compost... if only in hopes to prove my allegories wrong.