so this nutbag faggot monk who lived his life trying to convince the world that we all need to cooperate and respect each other decided to go out like a drama queen by lighting himself on fire to show that even the most peaceful and altruistic causes may need their martyrs

i repeat he set himself on fire to be a martyr

also, irony? air pollution over one burning body? you do realize thats hardly a drop in a bucket right? or are you one of those people who uses a snowball to argue that climate change isnt happening?

Probably more than you'll ever do for any cause.

admit you're envious OP, burning yourself to death is a pretty metal way to commit suicide

and at least this guy got in the news, unlike mass shootings that are so common that they are no longer newsworthy

>>3503301

That monk was a fucking loser too.

If your religion/philosophy is telling you to kill yuorself, then maybe it's time for you to find a different religion/philosophy.

>>3503286
It was obviously his inner white male Christian patriarchy that was oppressing his queerness that caused this.
Ban free inner-speech! Rightwinger Nazi scum get out of our psyches!

holy shit this gave me the dopest idea for a suicide.
the human joint.

What a literal faggot, lol

It would have been better if he had started setting white trash and other rightwingers on fire. That would have been a truly powerful statement, and he would still be alive to carry out his work.

>>3503366
No, he took the way better road, killing himself because he knew he was gay liberal leftist commie trash. Follow his example.

>>3503372

>implying being gay is bad
>implying being liberal is bad
>implying being leftist is bad
>implying being a communist is bad

Lol out loud XD
But srsly kys thx

>waah gay people exist, they hurt my feelings, I hate them so much, they have no right to breathe the same air I do, how dare they even exist, baaaaw

Fuck off, you sound like an SJW. The bible is bi-bullshit.

>>3503366
Are you SUUUURE you're in favor of moderation?

If you're absolutely certain you're in favor of moderation, please come to the IRC channel and state
"I am in favor of moderation."

>>3503382
>>3503376
And you've proven again that you really are trash.
You really truly are.
No FEEWINGS hurt here, I'm laughing at you.
But maybe it's not your fault, so sorry you had shit parents and teachers.

>>3503393

>rightwingers calling normal people trash

If rightwingers don't hate you then you must be doing something wrong

>>3503376

Why did the Soviet Union, China, and other Socialist countries lock up, execute, or otherwise "Disappear" homosexuals?

Oh that's right, like Islam, socialism doesn't do faggot shit.

They'll USE faggots to advance their agenda, but like liberals, faggots get the bullet too in leftist, socialist governments.

So there's that to look forward to.

>>3503411

>>3503387
Make me a mod. There will be moderation.

We will also begin autoplaying L'Internationale for everyone who visits the site.

>>3503444

You're either a dedicated troll, or woefully unaware of just how unappealing you are.

You're almost not even worth responding to, but that point is fast approaching.

>>3503444
I'd rather we autoplay New Junk City from Earthworm Jim

>>3503453
I am extraordinarily appealing to people who aren't trash.

>>3503286 Well... Air... is kind of big deal. There are a lot of dumb things to protest. But air pollution is something we need pay attention to and work to reduce. We should all want for cleaner air & water. The irony is here that if we don't take air pollution seriously we could all burn.

So is he dead or just horribly maimed?

>>3503366 If he did that he would be in prison... Wishing death & fire on people you disagree with is what crazy people do. It's what radical coocoo birds do.

>>3503376

>implying being straight is bad
>implying being conservative is bad
>implying being rightest is bad
>implying being a capitalist is bad

Lol out loud XD
But srsly kys thx

>>3503382 I think it's more so that the "progessive" alphabet soup community are becoming progressively more obnoxious and invasive than it is "hurting his feelings".

>>3503453 So why do you want to be a mod? So you make /furi/ another haven for your pc marxist cryptofash orwellian agenda?

>>3503482

>image

ah yes bet the creator of this was out protesting when the ex-USSR dynamited lenin statues in-between shoehorning quotes from 50-years-dead communist veterans of the Spanish civil war into contemporary affairs.

>So why do you want to be a mod? So you make /furi/ another haven for your pc marxist cryptofash orwellian agenda?

Yes.

>>3503454
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUWtfbjZ5-Q
but its gotta be the extended Sega CD version

>>3503482
It was about slavery. It shouldn't be preserved.

>>3503482 Funny about records being preserved.

The Smithsonian Institute and National Archives have a kind of crowdsourced project where volunteers are transcribing hand-written notes into digital searchable text. I've started working on some, so far I've been doing civil war era notes from North Carolina mostly pertaining to transportation of freedmen.

They could use more volunteers if you can deal with 19th century cursive.

>>3503504

>Complains about slavery
>Thinks Gulags are a good idea

>>3503551
Not a valid comparison. Slaves didn't do anything to deserve it, while a gulag is essentially just a kind of prison that people could be sentenced to. That's like saying "if you believe in freedom you must also oppose imprisoning anyone for any reason."

>>3503552 Yeah but your reasons for gulaging people are fucking stupid.

For what? going to church? Thinking for their themselves? Crapping on communism? For not being ashamed of being white? For cracking a joke that wasn't "pc"?

Fuck your Marxist Bullshit!

>>3503552

Well said comrade! How can anyone even suggest gulags were state-sponsored slavery? Those Siberian mines and rail lines built themselves, with a little volunteer assistance from convicted homosexuals, intellectuals, land owners, political dissidents, and Jews! We even rewarded them with free holes in the ground once they got too tired to keep digging!

>>3503607
Kulaks, actually. And the holes in the ground weren't free. They dug those themselves.

This taught them a valuable lesson about hoarding grain when their fellow workers were starving to death.

>>3503665

>ussr and modern russia
>the same thing

How embarrassing for you.
Cap is frowner.

>>3503666 Not embarrassed at all actually. If anything I'm embarrassed because I used to protest with the left. I supported the left and bought into all its horse shit. I'm embarrassed because it took this election to finally wake me up to how embarrassingly irrational and violent and overall bonkers the left really is. How passive aggressive, bossy, stuffy, and pompous they are, and when their manipulative douche bag tactics fail to get them their way they get directly aggressive.

Pretty sure modern Russia isn't all that fun to live in either. The point is it's a Russian national flag. PERIOD

Even if it's not the same flag as the current one. It is a Russian flag... The same country you're screeching that Trump colluded with. I mean if you're for socialism if you're for communism and a such a huge fan of Russia... Wouldn't you WANT the president to collude with them?

I mean NO ... THAT is embarrassing... To carry a Russian national flag (even if it's not the current one) and screech about how Trump is a Nazi for supposedly colluding with, is an embarrassment to your movement.

It's like you've trained your brain to accept things don't just don't make sense or stack up to critical thinking and explain it with PC liberalist mental gymnastics. The fact that I used to hang out with people like you is what is embarrassing to me.

>>3503672
The left doesn't want your kind. Glad to be rid of you! :)

>>3503672

>I used to protest with the left

Nope.

>I mean if you're for socialism if you're for communism and a such a huge fan of Russia... Wouldn't you WANT the president to collude with them? I mean NO ... THAT is embarrassing... To carry a Russian national flag (even if it's not the current one) and screech about how Trump is a Nazi for supposedly colluding with, is an embarrassment to your movement.

Well look at it from the other side: If Russia is indeed still socialist/communist instead of the creeping nationalist oligarchic filth that it appears to be, shouldn't YOUR ilk want nothing to do with it?

But then, this isn't about communism or socialism or capitalism; anyone in the workforce knows that the current state of U.S. capitalism is a fucked up joke, that the post-FDR marriage between socialism and capitalism is the best our country ever had it; what this is actually about is that the prevailing narrative is that Putin is OurGuy (despite the fact that Russia's population is 15% Muslim compared to Sweden's 6% or England's 5%) and that he helped the POTUS win the every-four-year-football-game. The mechanisms of corruption and how this sort of horseshit would've flown with the Founders doesn't matter to you anyway, because you don't identify with the citizens of the United States.
Your heart lies with your dead, worthless Confederacy and the aristocracy that failed.

>>3503665
That second image is quite literally a false flag.

Aufy can you source your images better in the future? Any time you spread something false, you damage everything else you try to say.

>>3503683
That's why the left doesn't want him on their side. It's to our benefit to have him making rightwingers look like idiots.

>>3503672

How do you know they arent waving it ironically as in protesting that the US is becoming a Russian bastion?

>>3503683 "False Flag" ?

Even if that is a picture of a confirmed infiltrator

There are literally pictures all over the internet of them waving just about every communist flag you can think of & no I seriously doubt every single one them is just some clever troll who thought he'd be sneaky. These people are fucking lunatics who worship destruction.

They're brain washed humorless zombie hoards of Marxist busybodies.

I didn't "Make this up". These people are literally on the streets promoting communism and beating people up.

You're false flag accusation is fucking bogus. Lick my balls!

>>3503733
Continue to use staged images then. You try to help a guy, sheesh.

>>3503735 The image was "staged" ?

As if there aren't enough actual photos of them carrying communist Russian flags already someone felt the need to "stage" it.

If you can prove this you should have done it already. I'm curious though what you're waiting for. So this was "staged"?

okay? You know this how?

was this staged?

or this? These are just Nazi's staging photos trying to make Antifa look bad? This isn't real either? Didn't really happen?

Or these guys? Also staged... Just more Nazi's in disguise?
It's not hard to find actual photos of actual Antifa carrying actual Soviet flags.

The very idea that someone would feel like they needed to "stage" Antifa carrying Soviet flags because there just isn't enough footage is fucking laughable. However, I wouldn't put it past the realm of human stupidity.

So back to your "False Flag" accusation. Link us the full story on this fucking idiot who decided there wasn't enough Antifa waving Communist flags so he decides he's got to "pretend" to be an Antifa with Russian flag.

This should really be interesting.

>>3503746
Short answers:
Staged/Fake
Staged/Fake
REAL Congrats you found a real one, this photo was taken at the Boston Ralley, where a poorly planned counter-protest was put together on Reddit.

Aufy, my friend.
Twitter is not a source.
Youtube is not a source.
Reddit is not a source.

If you wonder about an image, Go to https://images.google.com/ and slide that image right in there. It will try to find web pages that contain the image. If the image can ONLY be found on le reddet, twitter, and/or youtube and is only referenced by a few forums, It's likely staged, fake, or photoshopped.

>>3503765 Once again... you're simply stating that they're fake without actually providing anything to back up what you're saying.

I didn't ask you "Can you do the same thing you just did in the last post?"

I asked you "can you tell us how you know these are all staged?"

1 out of 3? yeah that's better than FUCKING ZER0 which is where about where you're at right now.

1 out of 3 to your ... FUCKING NOTHING... is still a victory.

>>3503787
Tried even teaching you how to use an image as a search term on google man.

You do you, was just trying to help.

>>3503792 "Trying to help" he says.

https://imgur.com/gallery/nFd7S

Latest leak from e3

>>3503795

>PUBG2

THE FIRST ONE ISN'T EVEN OUT OF BETA YET, HACKERS EVERYWHERE AND VEHICLES RANDOMLY FLYING INTO ORBIT KILLING ITS OCCUPANTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3503792

>Tried even teaching you how to use an image as a search term on google man.

"Google it" is not an argument or evidence.

You do have to show it's fake if you claim it's fake, because telling someone else to prove it for you would allow you to call yourself right regardless. You could never be shown to be wrong because you can always claim the other person didn't look hard enough, and this is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy of argumentation.

That being the case, all Aufy has to do is say: "I did look, and I didn't find the evidence you claimed, so you're wrong and Antifa is real." - after all, if the burden of proof is on the opponent, then it's your burden to prove that he didn't look hard enough.

>>3503794
Stalin killed 2/5 of USSR population. Elderly and children included.

100 million in 100 years.
USA does that in 5 years. Including its own people.
3 if you count "abortion = murder"

>>3503794

>somehow their other madman is worse than OUR madman. CHECK MATE LEFTISTS!

That argument is beyond retarded.

>>3503823

>all where madmen..

Now imagine if Trump was allowed to ruled like Putin or Kimg Jong Un...

>>3503930 The point is they were all murders and they were all socialist.
We all know Hitler was a mad man but I just don't understand why Stalin is glorified as some humanitarian, a hero, a paragon of human rights when his reign killed even more people than Hitler.

It's just doesn't make sense. Then your rebuttal isn't even a real one. Your not even making counter-argument you're just calling me names.

"So stalin killed more people? So what! You're dumb! Ya retard!"
I mean... that's how people argue in kindergarten!

>>3503845 I'd be very curious to see where you're getting this information.

broke: comparing raw death tolls
woke: comparing deaths as a percentage of population
bespoke: comparing deaths weighted by GDP per capita to work out the monetary value of those who died.
>>3503941

>Stalin is glorified as some humanitarian, a hero, a paragon of human rights

I'd like to live in your fantasy world tbh.

>>3503948 You do! You already live in my world. It's called the real world. I may have exaggerated to some extent with that statement but not by much.

The death toll isn't enough for to believe that Nazism and Communism
ARE BOTH HORRIBLE!?

What part of that is "broke"?
What part of that is so hard to believe?
Why do I even have to explain this?
This should be Obvious!

Unless those numbers are flat out & completely wrong,
Unless you can come up & show me what so great about living in Stalinist Russia, Mao's China Or Hitler's germany
then YEAH I still have a valid point to your FUCKING NOTHING.

Follow the leader, bitch.

>>3503845

>USA does 100 million in 5 years.

Is this a prediction?

>>3503941

Mass Murders or psychopaths aren't exclusively based no socialism. Its just that once they controlled a socialist dictatorship made it easy for them to murder a ton.
They used socialism as a tool.

Other examples that aren't exactly socialists, yet not always mentioned because their victims were not always their own population:

King Leopold II
Hideki Tojo
Saddam Hussein
Benito Mussolini
Mullah Omar

Other interesting factors is the number of population these countries had.

Both Russia and China had huge populations at the moment of the massacres.

US forces for example, massacred Natives in the millions. but who cares right? just how many tried to discredit or sink the information about slavery. And these murders weren't specifically of a single person, but a group.

Others were indirect deaths like Starvation..

>>3503941

> Stalin is glorified as some humanitarian, a hero, a paragon of human rights when his reign killed even more people than Hitler.

You're confusing Stalin with LENIN.

Stalin was the madman, Lenin was the man of ideas who was pretty much betrayed by Stalin and transformed his idea of shared government of the people by the people to a dictadorship.

King Leopold just cut some niggers hands off, that doesnt count

I'm really sick of seeing of these people defending communism.
They have invaded lulznet, they're trying to ruin America, free speech, science, education and pretty much everything in general.

Antifa are dangerous obnoxious lunatics. I'm sick of them!

No one likes Nazi's either, but their actually making them more popular by obsessing over them. They were irrelevant losers. Now there public enemy #1. Now being even vaguely conservative can get you labelled as a Nazi.
I've never feared being attacked by Nazis, but now just being even a little patriotic can get you labelled a Nazi? That's fucking absurd!

Free speech is what lead to the civil rights movement being successful, its what led to women rights, gay rights, and now that they have these rights these leftist liberal nut cases want to shut it down?

Groups like Antifa are a fucking menace.

>>3503982

>>3503983
Ancaps cause Communists to die of embarrassment.

>>3503983

>>3503982

>Free speech is what lead to the civil rights movement being successful, its what led to women rights, gay rights, and now that they have these rights these leftist liberal nut cases want to shut it down?

Stupid and wrong. Britain's race-relations are-and-were a million miles ahead of the US's and the UK has never had any sort of guarantee or protection on free speech. Homosexuality was legalised UK-wide in 1982 (1964 for England and Wales) versus 2003 for the USA. (Lawrence v. Texas, prior to this it was illegal in 14 states.)
free speech is not and has never been essential for a functioning society. for so long as tedious speech is protected as free speech, there will be no merit to that freedom.

>>3503989
Ancoms (unlike Ancaps) actually do all that co-op, shared labor, do-it-yourself sort of thing. They're very fond of setting up little communes in the middle of nowhere.

The only trouble is that they're Ancoms, and nobody wants a bunch of goddamn Ancoms everywhere.

>>3503993 The UK? Yeah. And they are totally wimpy and now Islam is handing them their ass. They're also are protesting to ban all knives because people still get stabbed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUep-4v_M9k

You love Freedom of speech when it's you doing all the speaking. Burning the flag, marching the streets wearing pink pussy hats, lecturing 1st graders on gender studies, making obnoxious PSA's about why not getting married and just fucking the occasional drifter is rad.

But then, any time anyone challenges your limited dogmatic narrative you're ready to just pull the plug. A society can function without it, sure. It can function without many things. But Freedom of speech is essential for a society to grow. It's something worth standing up for.

>>3504002

>But Freedom of speech is essential for a society to grow

no you're thinking of sex

>>3504003 I don't mean simply in numbers.

>>3503993

>free speech is not and has never been essential for a functioning society.

You forget that free speech automatically exists in a pluralistic society because no faction alone has the power to shut the others up. In order to prevent anyone from speaking, everyone must agree to it, which is practically impossible since everyone finds it a threat to running their own politics.

>>3504008

>In order to prevent anyone from speaking, everyone must agree to it

I'll pass that on to Albert Pierrepoint.

>>3504009
Well, technically you can, by corruption and other chicanery, but the question was about the constitution and whether a society explicitly needs free speech.

In a pluralistic society, free speech exists inherently because of the balance of terror. If someone is trying to suppress speech, the others will gang up against them.

In a society where one faction has managed to monopolize political power, you need to have free speech in law.

>>3504002
Those faces say it all.

Also, seconded. Britbongistan (and Cuckada) are fucked.
Freedom of speech is ESSENTIAL.
"Hate speech" is free speech, even if people hate it. In fact because people hate it, it is exactly what the amendment was for. Nobody cares about non-controversial speech. Doesn't matter if it's commie rhetoric or far-right stuff, you gotta let people speak and let the ideas compete against each other.
Also you can't have the first, third, fourth, fifth etc without the SECOND. This is where Europe went wrong. This is why our populations are so defenceless against government abuse. UK is also even stupider cause it doesn't actually have a proper constitution. Even Eastern European countries have proper constitutions that can't be changed without a citizen vote.

>>3504131

Hate speech ceased to be "speech" when their words are inciting to evil action.

Even fi you have "free of speech" it doesnt work the way you think it does retard. Including Yelling FIRE!

Any private company can tell you to shut the fuck up and remove you from premises.

Also something that idiots online seem to forget.. that the US constitution doesn't apply to the world.

>>3504198

Dipshit.

Nothing more. Just that you're a dipshit. That line of thinking is just as bad as the "I panicked so I murdered the trannie" defense or the "Jesus made me do it" defense.

People are responsible for their own actions. Stop acting like people need a Hilter to behave like Hitler. You're already doing it.

>>3504205
Scum like you don't care about "muh freeze peach" when it's someone on the left being suppressed, no matter how flagrantly "free speech" is violated. Therefore, "free speech" has become a one-sided tool for the far right to use as a cudgel against normal people. Therefore, "free speech" no longer has any value or meaning.

It's high time we started silencing rightwingers with pride. Just shut them all the fuck down, and have a good laugh when they cry about it.

>>3504131

>Freedom of speech is ESSENTIAL.

essential for what

>>3504198

>Even fi you have "free of speech" it doesnt work the way you think it does retard. Including Yelling FIRE!

"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
-Idi Amin

"There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
-John Stuart Mill

Inciting violence or panic, lying to people, libel/slander etc. may be punishable offenses, but these can never be criminal offenses because of the freedom of speech, which means the state can't do shit to you for saying things, although someone might sue you for damages in a civil court.

Even hate speech falls under 1st amendment protection unless you're directly commanding people to break the law. That's because by outlawing certain opinions as "hate speech", the government would be granting itself unwarranted powers that would undermine democracy by enabling the state to define what opinions are permissible in general.

>>3504209

>essential for what

For democracy. One cannot have a democratic society where one half of the people is threatening the other half with violence for speaking their minds.

Canada's autistic idea of "free speech" is more popular within the country than you might think. It looks a little like this:

"Hey, I love free speech as much as the other guy, but only for LIMITED free speech. I mean, we need to strike a balance, right? Now here's a list of things I personally feel should be banned. Item 1 of 165,854: calling people fat online when they're just a little husky..."

>>3504208

>Scum like you don't care about "muh freeze peach" when it's someone on the left being suppressed

The left is already trying to suppress free speech. You're trying to make the mind-bending argument that we shouldn't be suppressing people who try to undermine and overthrow all the principles on which our societies are built.

Your argument in kindergarden terms: "You're not allowed to hit me back! Na na na!"

>>3504219

Queue Aryanne pictures

>>3504213
You sure didn't mind when it was "the sjws" getting silenced. But now reasonable people agree that fucking Nazis should be shut down and scum like you won't STFU about the pweacious fwee speeks.

>The left is already trying to suppress free speech.

>the left

>>3504223

>nazi

sorry, but the National Socialist German Workers' Party hasn't existed since the end of WW2.

>>3504239

>Who could be behind this post?

>>3504239

But fellow traveler socialists, who agree with a LOT of National Socialist ideas about government control of business, etc... still do exist.

And they need to be dealt with just like their Nazi and fascist buddies.

>>3504252
No they don't.

>>3504239

>implying the ideology actually disappeared.

The party might be done and outlawed.. the followers of the same agenda and ideals are still pretty much alive and trying to regain power.

>>3504296

I know, have you seen Bernie Sanders proposing the government gives people jobs?

Still the same socialists.

>>3504376

>Bernie Sanders is a Nazi you guys

Rightwingers are literally retarded.

>>3504377

>Rightwingers are literally retarded.

if that is true, then the left literally has no brain function.

>gender politics, nuff said.

>demonization, intimidation, harassment and violence to anybody that doesn't hold left's ideas.

>infiltration of higher education to spread leftist propaganda.

>using dead children to strip law-abiding people of their constitutional rights (its people control, not gun control)

>creation of the welfare state

>blocking traffic, inciting violence, bullying people JUST because they don't follow the left's ideals.

>pushing facist ideals

The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.

2.”Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.

Globalization, nuff said.

3.”Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

^ this is exactly the left's favorite tactic.

>>3504377
No surprise..
whataboutism at its finest.

>>3504396

>if that is true, then the left literally has no brain function.

how cute!

>gender politics

Gender politics has been a thing for centuries since the classic old white men still has the stupid superiority ego ingrained from their father and still thinks the women should be servile and live in the kitchen.

>demonization, intimidation, harassment and violence to anybody that doesn't hold left's ideas.

Hu, that as always been directly and indirectly the far right groups. They have outright murdered students by using military for random excuses, they have tried to stop advancement of society multiple times.

>infiltration of higher education to spread leftist propaganda.

Which is bullshit, more education = more intelligent country. They do not want intelligent people. They want idiots like you who still think that the ultrarich cares about you. HINT THEY DONT.

>using dead children to strip law-abiding people of their constitutional rights (its people control, not gun control)

WELL REGULATED MILITIA. There is a huge difference in "free for all" that righ wing gun nuttards keep insisting about constitutional rights and what reality is. WELL REGULATED means that it needs to be regulation. Something that you oppose. The left isnt using "the children". The right is the one OUTRIGHT IGNORING the MURDERS of innocent people. And their only most stupid solution is "give them more guns!".
The Teachers in a lot of states barely can survive with their salaries and they do not even have basic supplies and you idiots want to put training and weapons on them now?

>creation of the welfare state

And it will continue so as long the right leadership keeps getting paid (corruption) to keep giving free wellfare money transfers to the ultra rich while refusing to push for higher salaries to the workers to end said dependency.

>blocking traffic, inciting violence, bullying people JUST because they don't follow the left's ideals.

Go to FOXNEWS and see about inciting violence. That excuse is getting old. Leftists want rights, right nuttards want to kill those who demand rights.

>1.”Everything in the state”.

Then why the right wants to control gays, religion, women but they somehow still claim they want low government? They just want THEIR own way of goverment that keeps the plebeyans down and protect the oligarchs.

>2.”Nothing outside the state”.

Again same... Also globalization is a stupid dumb argument, because it was oligarches who pushed for this. Lowering taxes for transactions and worldwide spanning business to thrive. Who are the ones most benefit of this? the ultra rich.

>3.”Nothing against the state”.

Except when convenient? right? thats the republican way. "Do what I say not what I do".
Like your precious Hannity, who is a WELLFARE QUEEN. Blasting people who are poor and need money while he smooches wellfare rights to booster his multi million deals.
Also any questioning will not be tolerated? This is Trump's and the current GOP government like bis per bis. Blocking Mueller's, insulting everyone who is trying to get information on whats going on. Multiple accusations and smear campaigns. People already plead guilty and still claiming there is nothing going on which is a lie. The GOP senators and representatives constantly manipulating, leaking on convenience and distort memos and information.

>>3504396
Pic unrelated?

>>3504419

>WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

you lefties will never grasp that you lost this argument centuries ago.

From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 U.S. Code §311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,

 except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are,
 or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States 
 and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are?

 (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
 (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
     who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It's pretty clear what it means.

>>3504419

also

>>3504419
lets not forget:

Lets break doown official numbers.

There are 312 million people in the US
There are 357 million guns in the US

there are, roughly, 32000 deaths a year in the US from fire arms

60% are suicides. That's 19,200
3% are accidental. That's 960
4% are justified. That's 1,280
33% are homicides. That's 10,560
80% of those homicides are gang related
That's 8,448

That's 1,712 in a society of 312 million people

That leaves a 0.010256410256% chance of death by a gun.

a 0.008564% if you don't hang out in the hood, not planning a crime, and not planning on committing suicide.

The USA does not have a gun problem.

Source is the CDC and FBI statistics.

by the by, some other things that kill people in the US in a year?

Heart disease: 611,105

Cancer: 584,881

random-ass accidents, like slipping in a bathtub: 120,557

Stroke: 128,978

Diabeetus: 75,578

Flu and pneumonia: 56,979

Auto accidents: 33,804

GUNS: 1,712

So, getting randomly shot is LITERALLY one of the least likely ways to die in the United States of State-Uniting.

Your Big Mac value meal is MANY times more likely to kill you than a bullet.

Went and got the numbers, because numbers trump feelings.

49,651,900 enrolled as of 2012 per https://nces.ed.gov/

From 1999 to 2012 you have 151 school shooting deaths. (I went for biggest number, so I even included gang executions instead of simply sticking to indiscriminate murder. )

151/49,651,900= 0.00000304117 or 0.000304117% chance of being a victim during that timeframe.

99.9997% of students will be fine.

>>3504419
also, incase you attempt the falacy of "the second amendment doesn't cover machine guns"

>>3504439

>That leaves a 0.010256410256% chance of death by a gun.
>Number of deaths: 2,712,630
>Total population: 321.4 million
> Death rates for firearm-related injuries (per 100,000): 11.1

That's a 1.32% chance of dying from a firearm.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

ITT rìghtwingers getting BTFO

>>3504419

>more education = more intelligent country

Indoctrination is not education. It's intellectual violence, and leads to a stupider country where the people are less able to form rational ideas and thought.

>>3504436>>3504438>>3504439>>3504440
Jesus Christ you're pathetic.

>>3504471
Why did VVindowsME have to go inactive he was the only one drawing cute gore porn animations

>>3504456

>freedom hating leftwing librals getting steamrolled

>claims victory over the right

>still wonders why hillary lost.

>>3504459

You're going full retard...

>Indoctrination is not education.

No, Rightwing bullshit IS indoctrination.

Using religion as base of bullshit while ignoring hard evidence IS indoctrination.

>>3504488

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/
https://mississippitoday.org/2018/04/04/the-kkk-resurfaces-this-time-with-political-intentions/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/08/the-preacher-who-used-christianity-to-revive-the-ku-klux-klan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.42acb3408865
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/17/americas-far-right-white-supremacists-nationalism

Were you talking?

They do RIOT, they do KILL. They just love to point the fingers at the left claiming they are the violent ones.
When all the direct violence has been by Right wingers trying to stop rights, blocking access, blocking other benefits to other people who are not right wingers or white dudes.

>>3504498

A lot of the young right wingers are atheist, agnostic. Just as you tolerate Muslims that hate gays because you need their votes, I tolerate Christians, because I value their votes.

Between the two groups, however, I know which one is less prone to murder, rape and pedophilia. I'll take the religion that believes in submitting to the state over the religion that believes in subverting it.

Christianity lends itself to stability. To finalizing affairs. Islam gives every follower an excuse for constant revolution. تكفير‎ and تقیة are not Christian concepts.

>>3504500

>KKK

Demoncrats

>>3504439

>The USA does not have a gun problem.

Yes it does. Because the existence of guns and the lack of gun registries makes people die more than they normally would. Death to the second amendment. Death to massacre weapons.

It's pretty crazy how white men have a White male rapist as president, are fiscally turning America into Kansas, got to kick trans Americans out of service against the wishes of the Pentagon, get to make it legal for doctors to let trans patients die, got a VP that took money to fight HIV/AIDS and used it to torture gay teens... And they still are so unhappy they need to kill women and black people in the streets.

Maybe being weak and upset is just inherent in being a White right-winger.

>>3504512

>makes people die more than they normally would.

actually, you have only one person to blame for the deaths going on today: Ronald reagan.

http://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

blame the person, not the tool.

>>3504514

Nah it's massacre weapons. Ban them, melt them all down, kill everyone that resists the confiscation.

Death to massacre weapons. Death to sellers of massacre weapons.

>>3504513

Oops, here come the facts: John Hopkins University announced that transgenders, even after they transition, still commit suicide at rates 20% higher than the rest of the population. And why? Because, Hopkins says, TRANSGENDERISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS. And accommodating a mental illness DOES NOT CURE IT.

John Hopkins is an almost unassailable icon of medical research, so no, it's not a Bible-based political group.

www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

thinkprogress.org/johns-hopkins-transgender-surgery-5c9c428184c1

>>3504515
yeah, good luck with that. i can see the headlines now "insane liberal gets turned into red paste after attacking lawful gun owner."

>>3504517

>And accommodating a mental illness DOES NOT CURE IT.

Yes it does. Also, we know your species will always want all trans people to die, just like we know your species doesn't give a fuck about "Muh black babies being aborted".

Some trans people need transition. Some don't. That is for medical professionals to decide, not subhumans that believe in big big boats and all animals on earth coming from one set of parents that was on the big big boat. You should be in gulag for even pretending you have authority here.

>>3504518
Gun control does not have a bloody history.

In fact, the Nazis did take guns away from Jews. But they gave more guns to Nazi party members and verified Aryans.

Just like republicans and the NRA say nothing when black gun owners get murdered in front of their kids but want all White rightwingers to have massacre weapons.

The second amendment is a tool of White supremacy.

>>3504519

>your species will always want all trans people to die

Trans people kill themselves. Because they are mentally ill. And because they're encouraged to butcher their anatomy in a misguided attempt to "make them right". Doesn't work. In real reality almost nobody actually wants trans people to die.

>>3504519

>Some trans people need transition

A 1996 medical study showed that a regular dose of anti-schizophrenic COMPLETELY ELIMINATES a trans person's desire to be the opposite sex.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00048679609065010

basically, no they don't.

>>3504520
The Nazi party actually allowed gun registration for Jewish families at first, and had nearly unrestricted gun access for any non-jew. Literally, unrestricted gun ownership.

What you are thinking is the period of time before and after the Third Reich, 1928 and later 1938, when the Nazi party did end up bringing gun "regulation" where it forcibly armed its citizens in defense of the fatherland.

But likely you just don't know shit what you are talking about and are using the time old "BUT THE NAZI'S DID IT" argument Charlston Heston attempted, and was summarily shut the fuck up, by Ronald Reagan no less who pointed out Nazi Germany allowed gunownership vs gunownership being completely banned before their time in power. Sorry but research actually fucking helps a lot, so does not being brain dead. I mean shit even Wikipedia is more correct than you are...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory

>>3504527

>And because they're encouraged to butcher their anatomy in a misguided attempt to "make them right"

This lowers the suicide rates which is why you Gilead-cunts are so angry about it.

>In real reality almost nobody actually wants trans people to die.

You president wants to let doctors leave trans people dying if they feel trans people are icky, and not a single one of you "centrists/libertarians/moderates" have said a single thing about it. All of you deserve to die.

>>3504528

>A 1996 medical study showed that a regular dose of anti-schizophrenic COMPLETELY ELIMINATES a trans person's desire to be the opposite sex.

No it doesn't. Or if it does, it is a flawed study.

Since we all know you people hate trans people almost as much as you hate abortion and food stamps, we simply have no reason to believe you when you offer up an alternative to surgery or say surgery is not needed and you're upset that surgery is bad for trans people.

It's like when you pretend you dislike Muslims because they are mean to women but then do everything you can to defend White men accused of rape or other hate crimes against women.

If your species ever shows concern for anyone other than yourselves, it is because you want to harm the subject of concern, or play them out against another group. You literally only have a history of harming people that aren't you.

>>3504530

>it is a flawed study

Where's your study, bucko?

>>3504528

Yes, the actual German people gun-confiscation by the Nazi party was in order to collect arms to equip their people's militia because the main armament factories were running night and day and still couldn't provide enough for the regular armed forces.

>>3504211
Democracy hasn't existed since the ~1980s. You cannot have a meaningful democracy in a world with free movement of capital across borders. Meaningful democratic decisions will immediately be vetoed by the market and meaningless ones are by definition meaningless. What do I care of the threat censorship poses to the balance of the bathroom-signage debate?

>>3504569

>Democracy hasn't existed since the ~1980s

you mean it hasn't existed since the 1700's

the united states was founded, and still is, a Constitutional Republic.

By definition, a Republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority (mob rule).

Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words - democracy and Republic - stems from the fact that many people consider them to be synonyms, which they aren't. they are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

incidentally, a king/queen system (monarchy) is not inherently evil or even inferior to a Republic or even a democratic system.

the right person in power can actually run the country better than any congress could hope to. it is dangerous for different reasons, but not anymore than when corrupt/evil people are elected.

>>3504529

> This lowers the suicide rates which is why you Gilead-cunts are so angry about it.

Typical Libtard pulling data out of his ass. Post-op suicide rate of tans is through the roof, as their excuse for 'why is my life so fucked up, must be due to wrong gender, everything will be fine after operation' evaporates.

>>3504603

>pulling data out of his ass
>lulz.net

>>3504529
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-johns-hopkins-head-psychiatrist-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solutio

> “beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population."

The suicide rate in the post-op is 41%.

Tell me, can you imagine a common hospital performing cosmetic surgeries that has 59% survival rate?

The only difference is they don't die on the operating table, they die hanging themselves in the bathroom some time later.

But you fucking murderous psychopath will sacrifice as many of these people's lives as needed to have your political agenda pushed through. You have your head so deep up your liberal ass you will shout over anyone who actually wants to help these people, because your precious "gender is a construct" values are endangered.

>>3504607
What is the pre-op suicide rate?

Also, the elevated suicide figures only apply to MtF transgenders. FtM people don't have statistically significant increase in suicide rates. The suicide rates identified in the study also don't apply after 2003, which indicates a deeper underlying reason, like the quality of the operation or the particular drugs used. The hormone treatments do have side effects.

>>3504608
20 times lower, meaning around 2%. Damn high comparing to entire population, but that's still 98% survivors, not 59%.

> The suicide rates identified in the study also don't apply after 2003, which indicates a deeper underlying reason, like the quality of the operation or the particular drugs used.

IMO it indicates the great rise of SJW that are ready to destroy the career of anyone who undermines their bullshit. No scientist dares to present a new study, because the results would be either similar, or worse, and that would mean the end of career as any minor mistake that is inevitable in any scientific work would be elevated to a monstrous crime which turns the whole paper into evil transphobic propaganda.

Very few honest scientists dare to study these things nowadays thanks to fear of rabid SJW fanatics.

sparknotes copy: comparing post-transition suicide rates to the general population is stupid, compare them to pre-transition. not all transgender treatment is surgery, hormone replacement therapy, legal sex-change (outside some weird yank states iirc) on can take place without any surgical intervention. laika actually survived going to space and was responsible for the downfall of khrushchev.
>>3504603
>>3504607
pre-op transgender suicide rates are also through the roof.

>Tell me, can you imagine a common hospital performing cosmetic surgeries that has 59% survival rate?

If we're going to draw the timescale out 20 years, it's rather easy. Pick a cosmetic surgery favoured by flash-in-the-pan pop stars who're certain to take an overdose once they fade. Forget 59%, I'll give you 7.

Now onto a more interesting area for discussion

>https://www.lifesitenews.com

You could at least try to make it look like you didn't google this. I wouldn't push the point, except that www.literallywhonews.com actually do cite their source, which is https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120 and which has the advantage of being paywalled meaning whoever you're arguing with can't actually read the case that's being made. Even with the churnalism of that famous intrepid reporter Dustin Siggins (Dustin!?) the argument made manages to trip over its own feet. I quote:

>In his op-ed, McHugh cited a 2011 study that followed "324 sex-reassigned persons" from 1973 to 2003 in Sweden. According to the study’s abstract, it found that "persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population."

So we're back to that old canard, the one thing people always cite when it comes to transsexuals. Oh, it's the Swedish study, it's even from Sweden where they're nice and tolerant and SWEDEN YES, and STILL they top themselves more.
More than who? The assumption we're intended to make (and which foolish people often state - as in this case) is that it's more than pre-transition transgender individuals but that's not what the Swedish study says at all. It says, to repeat: "higher risks...than the general population" which isn't that shocking at all. They are an abnormal case outside the general population. The Swedish study makes no comment whatsoever on suicide rates between pre- and post-transition transsexuals. Indeed, the Swedes would have a hell of a job doing so given that a transgender individual may never seek medical help, then top themselves, leaving no data available.
Since they're going to repeat themselves ("Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population") I may as well reword my point and repeat it: Do you want to know a fun fact? Individuals who take a course of chemotherapy have a significantly higher mortality rate than the general population. Can you imagine why that is?
Then there's the next part, which I'll only touch on briefly

>Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as 'satisfied' by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery

The implication we're invited to draw here (and which you invite us to draw) is that pre-op individuals shouldn't be given medical intervention at all, except for mental-health intervention, with no transition. But that's not what this data-point compares. It compares post-transition individuals who didn't have the surgery, but still had a dose of hormone treatment, living as their acquired gender, etc. The conflation of transitioning with surgery is common and spurious.

I'm not sure why I bothered with this post with hindsight. It won't convince anyone even though each point made is more about the use of data and evidence than in pursuit of an argument in itself. (i.e. one could accept everything I've just said, and still conclude against transition. it's acshually about the use of evidence in shitposting)

>>3504609

>20 times lower

That's the suicide rate of the general population (given the suicide rate is "20 fold" that of the nontransgender population), not of pre-transition transgender individuals. (Though interestingly, I can't find a figure as high as 2% for the US population at large. Perhaps by implication this casts doubt on the 41% figure?) Unless of course the two rates are the same, which would be suspect at best.

>Very few honest scientists dare to study these things nowadays thanks to fear of rabid SJW fanatics.

and you would know this, being a scientist, right? (no, engineers or CS don't count. even if they are 75% of the employed fandom.)

>>3504612

>one could accept everything I've just said

i try and make it a personal requirement NEVER to accept what anybody says. that is why i very much appreciate when people cite sources and allows me access to said sources and studies so i may study them to the best of my ability.

>>3504612

>> Now onto a more interesting area for discussion

>https://www.lifesitenews.com

> You could at least try to make it look like you didn't google this

I googled for a non-paywalled reprint. The original is in Wall Street Journal, behind a paywall.

BTW, I wonder what correlation is there between transgender and schizophrenia. Because what SJWs try to make people believe is that somehow trans are entirely immune to it, a flat zero of schizophrenic transgender people worldwide.

And while schizophrenia frequently causes all sorts of weird delusions concerning one's sexuality it somehow never ever causes the patient to believe to be of wrong gender.

No, not claiming that people with mismatch of brain vs genitals don't exist. Just claiming there are two different conditions with very similar symptoms and people suffering one of them are permanently served treatment for the other, which only aggravates the effects.

And ever implying a different treatment may be preferable is met with a pitchfork mob.

>>3504615

>>3504518

>still posting these dumb logic statistics.
>forgets that these statistics against STATE or CITY wide violence and crime are not representative of the actions against guns, because these gun laws were incredibly full of loopholes thanks to NRA, or the towns/states in question are surrounded of other states where you can buy full powered .50 cal rifles in walmarts.

>>3504625
there is no such thing as a "loophole" when exercising one's rights.

also

>where you can buy full powered .50 cal rifles in walmarts.

either you bring proof of this or you show yourself as a liar.

>>3504640

>>buy full powered .50 cal rifles

As opposed to the throttled-down ones?
Are they fully semi-automatic too?

i can waltz into my neighborhood burger king and buy a bazooka with extended mag, bump stock, night vision scope etc. any day of the week without even getting asked for id. that's how fucked up american gun laws are.

>>3504640

Lightning strikes vs shootings? Are you even trying? One of those things is done by people, one is not. It's not even a valid comparison.

>>3504640

Interesting fact, I just looked up some of my own statistics, and there were 16 lightning fatalities in 2017, but 14,000 mass shooting casualties. So...sounds like this is some real bullshit fake news, man.

>>3504653

>>3504653
Over 100,000 Americans (alone) die a year from stupid life choices.

>>3504659
wait, ignore that. the real numbers are a bit higher

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

Abortion *: 346526
Heart Disease: 194950
Cancer: 187763
Tobacco: 111065
Obesity: 97420
Medical Errors: 79794
Stroke: 42237
Lower Respiratory Disease: 45360
Accident (unintentional): 43174
Hospital Associated Infection: 31416
Alcohol: 31733
Diabetes: 24272
Alzheimer's Disease: 29683
Influenza/Pneumonia: 17525
Kidney Failure: 13570
Blood Infection: 10619
Suicide: 13573
Drunk Driving: 10728
Unintentional Poisoning: 10078
All Drug Abuse: 7935
Homicide: 5331
Prescription Drug Overdose: 4760
Murder by gun: 3647
Texting while Driving: 1900
Pedestrian: 1587
Drowning: 1242
Fire Related: 1111
Malnutrition: 880
Domestic Violence: 463
Smoking in Bed: 248
Falling out of Bed: 189
Killed by Falling Tree: 47
Lawnmower: 22
Spontaneous Combustion: 0

>>3504661
Masturbation: 23493857901205732957

I've thought about abortion alot more often only because generally white knighting yourself through the public is so tediously obnoxious. It is obnoxious to have to work under some sort of stupid mind boggling policy that enforces you to be a sort of dick to everyone. I am talking about retail. That stuff is so over the line stupid. I dunno how to explain my hate for retail, I love being able to shop and get what I need, but then I have to be so fucking patient everytime some dumb nigger wants his love song on the p.a. speaker when hey man, 80s aren't really dead, you just make it want to be. Okay I digress this is shit beyond compare why I think about it sometimes. It goes well enough I get out long enough to get resettled...then it strikes me. The fucking underbelly of retail comes through like a freaking red haze through every window of my house, just seething its jealous tendrils through every crack and cranny I can possibly have to overlook, then the satan that it is spawns what I can only describe as little hate seeds that open up to the most primal shit possible, mostly malicious commenting, it just kicks off so vivid. There's nothing that can stop it, and putting up a fight, garunteed you get a solid spoon of silver satan spittle rammed in your mouth for having an opinion, washed down with a fuck-loogie from everyone on your fucking street. Well surprise that is just what rapists need to validate their constitutional rights to rape verbally, and eventually to a physical level expressed only in the back rooms from where most of your favorite wal-mart price saver products are made. They are made out of hate, hate for you, and your country, your kids, your family, your friends, the things you like, the things that like you, and the rest of what's in the chum bucket you call a nation. Oh well, I am just letting that one sit on the board for all of 2018, but there's a solution that is just HEAVEN compared to sitting there in that shit lifestyle, and it's one where abortion are possible.

>>3504667

tries reading all that

So, what I got from that was......More abortions is the key to stopping backroom rape at Walmart?

Please tell me this is copypasta.

>>3504661

>links of deaths..
>checks address..
>a fucking ultra conservative bullshit site with zero facts.

>>3504643
Submachineguns and similar weapons that can mow down hundred of ppl in minutes.

Less sub humans and more sub machine guns.

>>3504679

>a fucking ultra conservative bullshit site with zero facts.

wow, you've just proven that you are both a liar and a fucking idiot.

>>3504679
not that I'm keen on defending a lot of conservative ideology or perspectives, but that site claims to pull its metrics from the list of sources it shows at the bottom of the page

>Sources:
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf#019
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf
>http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/graphs.htm
>http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
>http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0052833/m0052833.asp
>http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/Pedestrian_Safety/factsheet.html
>http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
>http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=953
>http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html
>https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/781687/john-james-a-new-evidence-based-estimate-of.pdf

i mean... i do think its retarded that they consider fetuses as "persons" but that's irrelevant in this case

>>3504711

No, I'm just pointing that extremist christian sites have the tendency of skewing whatever to fit their agenda.

Including their supposed abortion counter.

>>3504740
Like how leftist sites do with anything that could be construed as good for the right?

Look at all the fake news leftist agitprop sites pretending Trump had nothing to do with the Korean thing, when the New York Times of all places wrote an article in January where the South Koreans pretty much said the whole thing was Trump's diplomatic doing that got Kim to the tables.

But, like any good fundamentalist cult, the left can't have that in this age of 24 hour, 7 day a week "outrages".

>>3504760
sounds like you need a new hobby. you should try going outside

>>3504761
arguing for/defending their political stance is a, somewhat, healthy hobby to have.

>>3504760

Bombing the shit out of some country and show penile viribility of bombs isnt considered "diplomacy".

Pretty sure this is all the work of the CIA guy. Who convinced Kim to stand down.

Trump has the habit of taking the victories of anyone below him as his own.

>>3504768

>Trump has the habit of taking the victories of anyone below him as his own.

>South Korea's Moon credits Trump with 'huge' contribution to North Korea talks

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/asia/south-korea-north-korea-talks-moon-intl/index.html

>>3504788
um sweaty x https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf

>>3504789 Well, of course, you'll be more fit when the state dictates what you can and cannot eat.

>>3504791

>Communism leads to people starving.
>Let the people starve if they can't make it. We're capitalists!

>>3504791

aufism you got blown out by the fucking CIA. shut up.

v:thotly

>>3504794 We ARE capitalist. BUT we do have social services in place to ensure people don't starve.

Aside from food stamps, there is a multitude of missions, charitable organizations, and shelters all over the country, Mostly run by churches...churches that the far left seem to hate on so much and avidly oppose.

How do you think I've been able to travel throughout the country on next to no money? Without begging or panhandling? CHURCHES! FOOD STAMPS! SHELTERS! THE SALVATION ARMY! HELLO?

You think liberals actually a shit about the homeless besides paying lip service? In my experience, it's been right-wing Christian organizations taking care of these people EVERY TIME.

So don't act like just because you don't have a job in America you're gonna starve. As someone who's been on the streets I know the argument is horse shit. The safety nets are made possible by people WHO DO WORK, who DO HAVE MONEY... because they a HAVE A JOB. BUT OH NO LET's
MAKE EVERYONE POOR & DEPENDENT ON THE STATE! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

>>3504794

>>Communism leads to people starving.
>Let the people starve if they can't make it. We're capitalists!

You got it backwards. It's the communists who accuse capitalists of letting people starve, and the capitalists point out that their poor are obese while the communists are starving people to death on purpose.

>>3504795 Why are these programs becoming less funded? It might have something to with church attendance going down.
BECAUSE THE LEFT KEEPS ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY! EVEN THOUGH THEIR THE ONES DOING MOST OF THE ACTUAL LEG WORK IN TAKING CARE OF THE LESS FORTUNATE.

People have a less healthy diet in the U.S because we have more choice, and most people choose to eat crap. Of course, everyone's going to be healthier when the state dictates what & when people can and cannot eat.

Freedom is about CHOICE. I for one am GLAD to have choices & not have my meals dictated by some government entity. Some socialist countries are better off than others sure but... tell that to Venezuela where socialism isn't working out so great.

If you love socialism so much THEN GO! GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA AND GO LIVE IN SOME SOCIALIST COUNTRY ALREADY! Stop trying to America into some social justice communist police state.

>>3504801
Shut up Aufy

The church is only providing charity to preach and convert the vulnerable, to grow their own numbers and to have an excuse to collect the 10% from their other members. It's charity for business where 99% of the money dissapears elsewhere.

>>3504802 They do it because they're good people who enjoy helping others.

Some one's got to feed these people and sure isn't Muslims, or communist worshiping college kids.

They're not forcing anyone to convert to Christianity they're helping people who need help because that's what Christians are supposed to do.

If you're getting a free meal, clothes, and place to stay, I think the least you could do is say grace before you eat it, and say thank you to people providing it.

The fact that you're bitter that people are getting are help speaks poorly of you as a person.

>>3504801
Okay well I am not taking credit as a Christian for feeding the poor, or something over embellished like being a generous person by nature. But, it sure beats having to live up to it while the nation is thrown into mayhem every summer, People are starving, but it's not really your job to feed them and then brag about it, its about as much useful to say that you've taught another year of kids not to cross the street without looking and then say how much richer you are for it. Well, that's just a big joke compared to the shit that goes on in between your ratings and public attention whoring. Wasn't it just this year there was a inclement storm of god damn hobos and mexicans moving through the country like some sort of gypsy woodstock, or did we all just ignore that like cattle on route to the combine. Heh. I mean I still don't walk around outside at night and I am in one of the most protected areas to my Central Time Zone Knowledge. I don't really care so much because I am not a 16 year old on the cusp of hormonal fruition but I am pretty sure it was just that bad in the American Dream as bad as it is in Libya to stay out past curfew in the last 5 years or maybe you're just not one of those who has to worry about kids and your own pet being taken for bum-bum breakfast. Or are you still under the gypsy dust too. Fuck the homeless man they are the reason why there is so much cess in your town when the whole world is their hostage, they go wherever they want and do it all, then lean in on your window at night whenever its feeding time and don't think it won't be so hard now that everyone wants trans acceptence its gonna be one step behind pedo-rights and hobo-boarding passes. TL-DR What is stopping a black from eating you for real.

>>3504803

>They're not forcing anyone to convert to Christianity they're helping people who need help because that's what Christians are supposed to do.

Christians are also supposed to convert everyone else to christianity. The only reason they're being "helpful" is to bring people into the church where they can get preached at.

When it comes to poor people the Christians can't convert, they'll just excommunicate or lynch them.

aufism aren't you the dumb cunt who dresses up in rubber fetish suits with balloon tits? the kind of christians who proselytize through charity would shoot you in the fucking head you idiot, why are you white knighting them?

>>3504806 Christians seek converts through helping people? I don't see how that's a bad thing.

>>3504807 Christians might preach against masturbation and homosexuality and cross-dressing but no... they would not "shoot me in the head". You're thinking of Muslims.

>>3504810
You don't see how spreading lies and indoctrinating helpless people into a cult is a bad thing?

The church is a political organization that drives its own benefit, and handing out charity is no different than buying members.

>>3504812 Well to these people they're not "lies" It's their way of life, a way of life that involves being good a person. A way of that involves being thankful and appreciative of people who are good to you. It's not a cult. Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world.

Faith in God is not a bad thing. They're not forcing their religion on people. They're providing charity to people who need it. You don't have to get baptized to have a meal.

I think you're just pissed off that these people do more to actually help people than your Marxist social justice hipster narrative. They do the leg work & all you can do is complain.

I'm a Christian. Have I tried to "Convert" any of you? No... you do you. I'm gonna do me. I'm a Christian. I believe in God. You can piss and moan about it all you want, it won't change that.

A lot of the food banks sponsored by churches... they just give you bags of food for being poor.

Simple as that. No proselytizing, no preaching, Just sign your name here's some food.

But because it's run by people who believe in God, you're gonna fucking complain about it?

WOW... I just wow...

>>3504816

>WOW... I just wow...

Tarquins begone, this is a Runescape board.

>>3504816
i've always been thankful for food banks, i probably would have starved as a kid if it wasn't for them.

im fazbear agnostic

>>3504824

Present day Liberal Leftism is a religion. It is Christianity with God and Jesus removed. All the universalist, collectivist ideals are still intact.

>>3504797

>Mostly run by churches...churches that the far left seem to hate on so much and avidly oppose.

Sure Jan!

What the left hates is when Church wants to monopolize these "services" and then try to use the support they gained by these services for political influence and gain.

>>3504801

>GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA AND GO LIVE IN SOME SOCIALIST COUNTRY ALREADY!

Might help if "America" could also GET THE FUCK OUT of other nations. They keep invading to protect "their interests", which means setting up dictators, puppet governments and leech wealth and resources.

>>3504849 The reason they're "Monopolizing" charitable organizations is because they actually want to HELP PEOPLE & they ACTUALLY DO. Nothing is stopping left-wing atheists from setting up charitable organizations to help the homeless. They just don't typically.

If you care about feeding the hungry then feed the hungry. No one's stopping you. It just seems awful damn shallow and childish to be resentful of the people who do because they're typically Christians.

>>3504856 Well if these countries had stable governments to begin with America wouldn't be able to do that.

>>3504861

> because they actually want to HELP PEOPLE & they ACTUALLY DO

Yeah, like the time they were paratrooping PRIESTS into Haiti after the earthquake, rather than doctors and engineers.

>>3504825
I feel silly for taking so long to realize what is off about this graphic.

There is no such thing as a "Gnostic atheist" or a "Gnostic theist". Why? Because when someone says "I know god exists," they're using expressive language to convey a belief, not knowledge. Knowledge plays zero role in any claim made about god, because there is zero knowledge regarding god. God cannot be observed, proved, verified, or even reasoned about in any way; he can only be imagined.

Additionally, there are people who are careful to base their beliefs exclusively on this lack of knowledge. To these people, god has exactly 50/50 odds of existing, entirely because there is zero evidence to suggest either possibility is more likely than the other. To deny these people a label is to bully them - which, of course, is what this board is all about anyway. So come continue doing your insincere trolly things.

>>3504889

>There is no such thing as a "Gnostic atheist" or a "Gnostic theist".
>God cannot be observed, proved, verified, or even reasoned about in any way; he can only be imagined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis
The Lord gives wisdom [ħokhma] (sophia), from his face come knowledge [da'ath] (gnosis) and understanding [tevuna] (sunesis)"
— Proverbs 2.6

Gnostic theists claim that God is knowable through God by revealation. Likewise, gnostic atheists claim that nature can be observed and explained rationally to such a degree that God has no place in it - i.e. that God is an oxymoron at best and therefore cannot exist.

>To these people, god has exactly 50/50 odds of existing, entirely because there is zero evidence to suggest either possibility is more likely than the other.

That's a logical fallacy, because assuming 50/50 odds requires that something is known or assumed about God. Like, a coin has two faces, so an ideal coinflip has 50/50 odds. Does God have two faces? Indeed, you can't assume any odds, or make any sort of Pascal's wager while claiming to know nothing about God.

>>3504889

>To deny these people a label is to bully them

Well, if you so wish, we can give them a label: idiot.

Assuming 50/50 odds for God on the basis that absolutely no evidence exists affords the same for any other entity we care to name but not define, so there should be equal odds for Ogd, Gdo, Ugh, Duh, Huf... etc. etc. because why would God be a special case? We can invent any number of others, and ask the same question.

So, if you take the aggregate of these odds of these various somethings, each of them being exactly equally likely to exist than not, then the probability of "God" existing tends to zero.

So the person who makes the claim of 50/50 odds on basis of no knowledge about God has to make claim of the knowledge that there's no other possibilities, and therefore is in contradiction with themselves.

calculating... calculating...

conclusion: 97.25% chance of the existence of a christian god, based on a surplus of academic evidence.

calculating... calculating...

conclusion: agnosticism determined to be the most euphoric stance on the issue humanly possible. atheism is obsolete.

>>3504894
texas instruments quality control staff have apparently been slacking off again

>Gnostic theists claim that God is knowable through God by revealation. Likewise, gnostic atheists claim that nature can be observed and explained rationally to such a degree that God has no place in it

A claim, an argument, an explanation. A person agrees or disagrees with these - they're all subjective. There's no way to verify any of these concretely.

>That's a logical fallacy, because assuming 50/50 odds requires that something is known or assumed about God.

People who know nothing about god take guesses about how likely god exists all the time, without issue.

>Assuming 50/50 odds for God on the basis that absolutely no evidence exists affords the same for any other entity we care to name but not define

Knowing nothing about something doesn't preclude consideration of any given definition of it. But let's say we're talking about a god where no assumptions are made:

>if you take the aggregate of these odds of these various somethings, each of them being exactly equally likely to exist than not, then the probability of "God" existing tends to zero.

When you ask, "Will all 3 coins land on heads?" You get odds lower than 50%. But when you ask, "Does God, Ogd, and Ugh exist?" You can't make the assumption that they're not the same thing, because you'd be giving them a definition.

That one was honestly fun, I did have to think about it for a while! I bet you could stump me.

>>3504915

>People who know nothing about god take guesses about how likely god exists all the time, without issue.

And they'd be completely unfounded in doing so. Anyone can say anything, but what they say doesn't necessarily have any meaning.

>Knowing nothing about something doesn't preclude consideration of any given definition of it.

Yes it does, because you're outright admitting you don't know what it is: something which is totally unkown hasn't got any definition to consider. Suppose, if I ask "Does X exist?", you may choose to substitute anything for X but that would be begging the question - I didn't say what X is, and the question is unanswerable. It actually isn't even a question, and trying to answer it is falling into error.

>But when you ask, "Does God, Ogd, and Ugh exist?" You can't make the assumption that they're not the same thing, because you'd be giving them a definition.

That error comes from assuming that "God" has 50/50 odds, which already includes the assumption that "God" is somehow special and distinct from these other labels. In reality you can't assume that they're different OR that they are the same. You can't make any assumption because no definition was given.

>>3504915
The main issue here is that labels which are undefined are blank. This is known as the fallacy of naming - thinking that a word automatically has meaning.

Any question in the form of "Does X exist?" is only a question if X can be replaced with what we mean by X. A question "Does a car exist?" can be parsed by substituting "a car" with some definition of a car, turning the question into: "Does a four wheeled vehicle exist?" - and the question can be answered.

The question "Does God exist?" parses into "Does exist?" because the label "God" is without definition and therefore empty. This phrase "Does exist?" isn't even valid language, and therefore doesn't mean anything. It isn't a question but simpy nonsense.

That is why the question of God is meaningless, and giving it odds to be true or false is silly.

Religions fall into two categories:

1. "Believe the way we say or we'll jail/torture/kill you!"
2. "Take our word for it, never mind there is no evidence to back it up."

Nothing more.

>I didn't say what X is, and the question is unanswerable. It actually isn't even a question, and trying to answer it is falling into error.

"Does X exist?" "I don't know."
As far as I can tell, this is what you're trying to convince me is ever an erroneous answer? Because that's obviously extremely silly. Everything else I write beyond this is secondary to this silliness.

If X is unknown to him and/or the word X doesn't mean anything, the person still doesn't know if X exists. He'd need to ask for more info, and if he doesn't get any, nothing has changed. He still doesn't know if X exists.

>That error comes from assuming that "God" has 50/50 odds

No assumption is made. In fact that's exactly why the odds are 50/50. Anything else would rely on an assumption. Imagine someone responding to any question with, "Maybe, I have no idea." This maybe is 50/50.

Of course this is different from the 50/50 you'd see with a coin flip. Same odds, but different underlying reason. You can assert that a coin flip is 50/50 through testing, and make predictions based off of it.

>fallacy of naming
>the label "God" is without definition and therefore empty.

Googling "fallacy of naming" gives me no information. This doesn't appear to be a thing.

>"Does X exist?" "I don't know."

I should add - to claim that asking "Does X exist?" is erroneous language is equally silly. It may have as little meaning to you as a nonsense word, but that doesn't mean the sentence parses down into nothing. Absolutely nobody interprets "Does Gnurk exist?" as "Does exist?" Even if they think it's a silly question.

>>3504921

>As far as I can tell, this is what you're trying to convince me is ever an erroneous answer? Because that's obviously extremely silly.

Exactly. Trying to answer when no question was asked is foolishness.

>If X is unknown to him and/or the word X doesn't mean anything, the person still doesn't know if X exists.

You're still hung on to the label as if it means anything. The person doesn't know X - period. The label X is precisely empty, void, refers to nothing, so talking about existence is entirely pointless.

>No assumption is made. In fact that's exactly why the odds are 50/50.

Non sequitur. That's what I'm trying to tell you. If no assumptions are made, there's nothing to talk about. You can't bet on a race without racers - how would you know which won?

>Googling "fallacy of naming" gives me no information. This doesn't appear to be a thing.

Nominal fallacy. (nominal: relating to names)
http://mxplx.com/meme/3062/

>Absolutely nobody interprets "Does Gnurk exist?" as "Does exist?" Even if they think it's a silly question.

Linguists do, but that's besides the point. You're simply exposing the naming fallacy: people think that because a name exists, it must refer to something. That is why people take the question seriously, and are lead into a logical trap; an error of thinking.

The question of God, or trying to answer it, is an error in thinking.

>>3504921

> You can assert that a coin flip is 50/50 through testing, and make predictions based off of it.

Actually, a real coin is never 50/50. You assert that a coin has 50/50 odds by defining a coin as a two-faced object which has no intrinsic bias as to which side it prefers to fall on. The odds are a result of the abstract idea of the a coin, which has a correspondence in real coins.

The odds of God would be the result of the idea of God which however has no contents because no correspondence to a real God exists since nobody can point to one in the lack of knowledge of what it should be.

The abstract arises out of the concrete, or as some philosophers would put it: existence precedes essence. All words that have meaning ultimately point to something - they can be broken down in a way, however difficult it might be, to the point where a person can in some way point a finger and say "that is what I mean".

When you deconstruct your own thoughts in this way, you'll find that many things we simply assume aren't actually meaningful at all, or the meaning is found to be surprisingly different than what we assumed and we find out that we were drawing entirely the wrong results out of it.

I have less time than I'd like to respond, so I'm being a little more brief. I'll have more time later.

>Trying to answer when no question was asked is foolishness.

You understand why I'm saying that's extremely silly, right?

Imagine you're in a conversation with someone. They ask you if X is real, probably god. You respond by giving them a funny look as though you don't understand? Or what?

It doesn't seem like you are not being genuine. You are smart enough to surmise about what they likely mean by the word "God," even if your idea of the word is that it's a meaningless nonsense word. Your response would make you look like you're going out of your way to be a douche, unless I'm way off somehow. But it doesn't seem like it.

>You can't bet on a race without racers - how would you know which won?
>people think that because a name exists, it must refer to something.

"Must" is much much much different than "Might".

>>3504934

>You understand why I'm saying that's extremely silly, right?

No.

>Imagine you're in a conversation with someone.

Social habits can't dictate logic. Truth or the meaning of statements isn't "socially determined" like that. You're still just exposing the nominal fallacy, where people assume - for various reasons - that all labels must mean something.

>They ask you if X is real, probably god. You respond by giving them a funny look as though you don't understand? Or what?

I would most likely say, "What do you mean?". I really can't answer the question without further information - but if I'm lazy I'll just say what they want to hear to get them off my case. Notice however that I'm simply responding to nonsense with nonsense there - a placebo answer.

>You are smart enough to surmise about what they likely mean by the word "God,"

I could take a guess, but that would be just me stealing the question and inserting my own by assuming what they assume with "God" without actually asking them. Such conversations are always pointless, because I can always disagree by inserting a version of God that is disagreeable, and they can do the opposite, because at no point do we actually come to any agreement of what we're even talking about!

>"Must" is much much much different than "Might".

That's a trivial point. In the case of God, people usually do assume that it must mean something - and so they fall in the trap and get entangled in endless arguments of total nonsense.

>>3504934
I mean, let's take a more concrete example:

Me: Let me ask you, "Is Toyota a good car?"
You: Which Toyota?
Me: Toyota. You know, Toyota.
You: You mean like, a Lexus? Or a Corolla? Camry? What do you mean by "Toyota"?
Me: Toyota! You know perfectly well what car it is!
You: how can I answer that?
Me: You just have to say "yes" or "no". Or at least give it a 50/50 if you don't know.

See how silly the conversation gets when you use a label which has no meaning in the context? "Toyota" is a car manufacturer, so the question "Is Toyota a good car?" parses down to gibberish. If then we were to assume that by "Toyota" they meant a 2005 Toyota Camry, we could answer our own question, but not necessarily theirs, and then the "yes-no-yes-no" argument would start where one imagines the conversation is about the Camry while the other is actually assuming a 1971 Corolla but refusing to tell you that.

This sort of error is perfectly easy to spot and you would quickly tell the other person to stop fucking around, but somehow when we ask the same kind of question about God, people's logic goes hang.

>>3504968
Though in this case you could answer "No" regardless, and you'd be absolutely correct, because a car manufacturer isn't a car - the question isn't entirely without a meaning if you take it literally. What isn't a car is by definition not a good car exactly because it isn't a car. Doing so, you would answer the question, but did you truly answer their question?

>>3504894

stahp
no, really.
Try it, we might all like it.

>>3504967
What's the shape of something without a shape. Etc.
Color of an unknown color. Etc.
What does smaeluga even taste like, is it meaty.

>the label "God" is without definition and therefore empty.
>The label X is precisely empty, void, refers to nothing
>In the case of God, people usually do assume that it must mean something

I feel silly for not thinking of this until now. Of -course- word X (or "god") has a definition, because it only needs to have one in somebody's mind.

The reason it means something to them is irrelevant. Whether it means something to you is irrelevant. The accuracy or truth of X's definition or any claims made about X are irrelevant. Whether it's the same as anyone else's definition of X is irrelevant. Even if someone else doesn't tell you what it means to them, and you try to argue with them about it carrying a different understanding of the word - that is irrelevant. And avoidable.

If the word "god" (and any word similar to it) was absent from our lexicon, its many concepts would still remain, and we'd express them through a series of words rather than a single one. The word itself is just a shortcut, and gives us a broader starting point.

>You're still just exposing the nominal fallacy

I read about it a bit, and the fallacy appears to require two elements: A fact (or claim?), and a word to explain that fact. So in this case, it would look like, "The world exists because god. How do we know it's god? Because the world exists." That's a nominal fallacy, right?

I'm reading back on your previous posts, and I can't tell exactly what fact/claim is being falsely explained with the word, and what consequences a nominal fallacy would ever have for the words used in one. What nominal fallacy are you seeing, exactly? It seems like word X all by its lonesome is supposed to be a nominal fallacy?

>>3503286

Hey OP, his last name was Buckel not Bruckel.
Learn to Google (or look at a reliable news source).

>>3505039

>Of -course- word X (or "god") has a definition, because it only needs to have one in somebody's mind.

That's the issue. People think they do, but when you ask them to define God, they fail because the definition they try to give is contradictory or oxymoronic, or they run into a definition loop where they try to define God by using other words which lack definition.

The reason why we need to define the words we use to define God is because the definition allows us to identify God. We need something to point at and say "that". If we don't know what we mean by "create" when we say "God created the world", then we still don't have a definition of God. A painter creates by taking paint and putting it on a canvas, but how does God create? What could you point at and say "that's what God does"?

If you could, then you would automatically have found God, because a full definition of God - a unique description of how to identify God - would require you to point a finger at God. If you say we can know God, that we have a definition, then it's your burden of proof to show that one exists, and the question of God is no longer about faith but evidence.

It is exactly because of this that religions started "defining" God as unknowable to avoid having to prove it, which isn't a definition at all but simply admitting that you don't have a clue.

>I read about it a bit, and the fallacy appears to require two elements: A fact (or claim?), and a word to explain that fact.

Here the fallacy applies to the validity of the question. Before you start asking "Does God exist?" you must ask yourself whether this question is valid, and there people make the error of thinking that because a word exist it must have a definition, that because the word "God" exists the question must be valid. The claim is that the question is valid, and the fallacy is saying "Yes, because the word God exists."

In the case of X nobody (sane/intelligent) would ask the question before having at least some sort of idea what they're talking about because it wouldn't make sense to ask "Does X exist?" without defining X.

>>3505206
For an example, let's take a plausible definition of God: "It creates something from nothing". Do we know of anything that creates something from nothing? No? Then, no God. Problem solved.

(Warning: how do you define "nothing"?)

>>3505208
Undefined.

>If we don't know what we mean by "create" when we say "God created the world", then we still don't have a definition of God. A painter creates by taking paint and putting it on a canvas, but how does God create?
>a plausible definition of God: "It creates something from nothing". Do we know of anything that creates something from nothing? No?

Why does somebody need to know how a universe/painting is created in order to claim that somebody created one? That's beyond ridiculous. The definition of the word 'create' does not require that knowledge - even in dictionaries. Only the result, not the process: "to bring into existence"

>a full definition of God - a unique description of how to identify God - would require you to point a finger at God. If you say we can know God, that we have a definition, then it's your burden of proof to show that one exists, and the question of God is no longer about faith but evidence.

But a "full definition" (or a "factual definition" as I'm interpreting it) is separate from a "valid definition." As it is, the definition differs from person to person because we're working with zero data. Many definitions. If aliens suddenly flew in from outer space one day, people would argue about whether they're gods.

That said, it's pretty easy to imagine what a god would be that the great majority of people would agree on - even if it wasn't their original concept of god. This is helpful, but even still completely irrelevant.

It seems to me, as far as I can think right now, that any given definition of god is valid if there's a possibility that it's true. If you draw a sketch and say that "god looks like this," nobody can tell you that definition is incorrect, because they don't know.

>>3505233

>Why does somebody need to know how a universe/painting is created in order to claim that somebody created one? That's beyond ridiculous.

Exactly so that we could say somebody created it. If by "create" you actually mean "come into existence of itself" then what do you think happens to the definition of God?

>The definition of the word 'create' does not require that knowledge - even in dictionaries. Only the result, not the process: "to bring into existence"

It does. How do you define "to bring"? How does one bring the world into existence and how is this act unique to God? See now you're playing the definition loop where you're dodging the question of what we mean by God by giving it definitions which lack definition.

In the case of the painter, we can stop the never-ending spiral of definition by going to an actual painter and showing how a painting is created. This is what makes words mean something - it's what makes the phrase "A painter creates a painting." meaningful - it refers to something real, whereas God refers to exactly nothing, insofar as you're only trying to define God by words and not by directly pointing at one.

>As it is, the definition differs from person to person because we're working with zero data.

It actually doesn't. As long as nobody has any knowledge of God, then all these "personal definitions" are exactly empty, and therefore they are one and the same: not a definition.

>But a "full definition" (or a "factual definition" as I'm interpreting it) is separate from a "valid definition."

Yes. A valid definition of God would only use words in a way that they have correspondence in reality - but do you see the problem? If you point at things other than God, you haven't found God but these other things. A valid definition of God can still fail to identify God, whereas the valid AND full definition of God would amount to pointing at God itself.

>If you draw a sketch and say that "god looks like this," nobody can tell you that definition is incorrect, because they don't know.

But you do, because you just made it up. In order to honestly draw that sketch, you would have had to seen God, and since God is seeable, then God is showable and therefore nobody has to take your definition seriously until you show them God. Otherwise your definition by sketching is useless, because it doesn't allow anyone else to identify God and decide on the matter.

>>3505233

>It seems to me, as far as I can think right now, that any given definition of god is valid if there's a possibility that it's true.

Any definition of God is valid if it has a correspondence in reality.

A caveman can point at a lightning bolt and say "God's arrow", thus defining God that which creates lightning - among other things which the caveman doesn't undestand. But, this is a valid definition of God - even though the phenomena they're pointing at will later turn out to be something different.

Yet we could still go by this "old" definition just fine, and say "God" = "Observable laws of nature" or something to that extent. That however is unsatisfactory to the religious person because it steals all the mysticism and the metaphysics out of God, so the religious person pushes God further and further back into the mist of ignorance until there's no place or phenomenon in reality where it can exist. Then the religious person says "Well, God is really unknowable".

And pop, the bubble bursts, God no longer has meaning. Therefore to ask whether one exists is folly.

>>3505244
Also notice: if you point your finger at the world around like the caveman and say "God's creation", i.e. defining God "that which created all this", that can be a valid definition, but it tells us nothing about God because that which created everything can be anything.

So you might end up with "God" = "The Big Bang", or "random quantum fluctuations of the vacuum zero point energy", or something like that. Calling it God is again the nominal fallacy because you're trying to explain something by giving it the name "God". This is the God the Prime Mover, the cause of causes, definition. That line of thinking explains neither the world, nor God, and it would be foolish to have a faith based on it.

As for the question itself, "Does God exist?" then boils down to "Is there an Original Cause?", to which you could point out that the question of original causes depends on the idea that everything has a cause, and so the notion is self-defeating because it doesn't stop at God.

And that's why the theists dropped the "prime mover" argument of God as well.

>How does one bring the world into existence and how is this act unique to God?

Close your eyes and imagine what it would look like if some physical object suddenly appeared seemingly from nowhere. And though you have no way of knowing it, a being caused this to happen somehow.

Anyone can imagine this and understand those words. This is one way "god creates something from nothing" can be defined. Which is why ---

>going to an actual painter and showing how a painting is created. This is what makes words mean something

--- this is just not true. Nobody needs to see that first-hand. It just seems like such a massive stretch to me, to make that claim.

>Any definition of God is valid if it has a correspondence in reality.

It's just tricky, because we don't know everything about what reality is. This is what leaves the realm of imagination open to consideration. It may have made our ancestors look silly, but we're still much in the same position they were in.

Sorry this one's a bit short again! Though I tried to hit the stuff I feel most strongly about