Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

Don’t know how true this is, but:

2022pw.jpg
 
Husky_Khan said:
FxXAKGZacAA5JDX
Click to expand...
Well...
When ISIS took over they destroyed all antiques that don't conform to their theocracy.
Such antique destruction is a very common thing in 3rd world. So the british looting antiques worldwide was actually a good thing...

... for a time.
in 20 years britain will be an islamic state and will destroy all those antiques.

And already wokies are destroying antiques all across the western world. europe, UK, USA, canadia (aka mooseland), etc.
From the statue destruction in USA. To sweden destroying viking artifacts because "they were white colonizers"
 
Captain X said:
[Long response, snipped because it consists of multiple segments and my response will be more of a holistic catch-all reply; snipping not intended to denigrate the content]
Click to expand...

My issue with your entire line of reasoning, at its core, is that you persistently fail and/or refuse to engage with my actual argument. Since I know you to be a reasonable conversationalist from what I've seen and experienced on this site, I'll readily assume that this is some kind of miscommunication. I'm going to outline the issue by repeating the basic arguments and demonstrating the logical error that occurs. This is going to be a bit long, and may seem smwhat pedantic, but I genuinely think that you're missing the core of my argument. (Or, in other words: your responses don't disprove my statements, and don't even actually answer my statements at all.)



My first statement: "The ideal is a largely conservative and religious society, and a constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives."

Your response: "I don't want a religious society. I want a secular society and constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives."

My second statement: "Secular societies have never yet produced a constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives. Conservative and Christian societies have. There is evidence that my ideal can be put into practice. Do you have evidence that your ideal has ever worked out?"

Your response: "Conservative and Christian societies have also led to interfering, bad goverments."

My third statement: "Yes. they have. But history shows that they can lead to good outcomes, too, and repeatedly have. Where is the evidence that secular societies can and have done the same?"

Your response: "I don't need to provide evidence, I said it was an ideal. The fact that I've given examples of conservative and Christian societies producing bad outcomes is proof that I'm right."



...And that's where we are now. Do you see the error in your reasoning? The fact that conservative and Christian societies can and do lead to bad outcomes at times is not proof that you are right. Because I have also provided proof that they can and do lead to good outcomes. This means that the track record of conservative and Christian societies as an ideal is, at worst, mixed. To prove that your ideal is superior, you need to demonstrate that the track record of secular societies is better. If you can prove that, you have an actual argument.

Until such time, your position is ultimately that my ideal is bad because it isn't perfect (i.e. also leads to bad outcomes at times), and we should therefore do what you suggest instead... even though you have given no evidence that it has ever led to better outcomes, and I have ample evidence that it typically leads to worse outcomes.

For the sake of clarifying the problem, allow me to now reproduce an argument that I've had with leftists many times. I'm pretty sure you've had it with them too. Here goes:



My first statement: "The ideal is a largely capitalist society, where most people can live good lives."

Their response: "I don't want a capitalist society. I want a socialist society where most people can live good lives."

My second statement: "Socialist societies have never yet caused the majority of the populace to live good lives. Capitalist societies have. There is evidence that my capitalist ideal can be put into practice. Do you have evidence that your socialist ideal has ever worked out?"

Their response: "Capitalist societies have also led to all sorts of abuses."

My third statement: "Yes. they have. But history shows that they can lead to good outcomes, too, and repeatedly have. Where is the evidence that socialist societies can and have done the same?"

Their response: "I don't need to provide evidence, I said it was an ideal. The fact that I've given examples of capitalist societies producing bad outcomes is proof that I'm right and that capitalism should be discarded in favour of socialism."



And this isn't even a bit of sophistry that I'm making up. This is a distilled form of an argument that I'm pretty sure is familiar to most everyone on this site. If anything, I've made the socialist a bit more honest than they typically are in real discussions, in order to better mimic your style (which is far more honest than that of a socialist). But I'm sure you see the issue. Your insistence on an ideal for which you provide no proof of practical functionality is all too recognisable to me. As is the tendency to equate "this isn't perfect" and "this is therefore entirely worthless".

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Capitalism isn't perfect, because humans aren't perfect; but that is no reason to throw it out and choose socialism instead. And conservative Christian societies aren't perfect, either, for the exact same reason; but that, too, is no reason to reject conservatism and Christianity and opt for progressivism and secularism instead.

If, at long last, a socialist can provide me an example of socialism actually working as advertised (and sustaining itself in the long term), I'll certainly take that under advisement as evidence that it can work, under certain conditions. Yet such evidence has never yet been provided. And if someone can provide the same evidence for secularism working out as advertised, my resonse will be the same. Yet that evidence also remains curiously absent. Indeed, even you (someone many times more honest than any leftist) studiously refused to provide any such evidence. And if you do forgive me for saying it so harshly: I'm pretty sure that this is because we both know that such evidence doesn't exist.

The very doctrine of separation of Church and state as a political concept can be traced back to Saint Augustine. Christianity birthed this idea. When Christianity was chucked out of the window, the immediate result was... Robespierre. So when it comes to track records, my quest for "a government that doesn't fuck us all over horribly" continues to lead me into the embrace of Christianity, and guides me far away from the cold and deathly grip of secularism. Not because Christianity is a guarantee of good outcomes, but because it demonstrably can produce good outcomes. Secularism can thus far claim nothing of the sort. In fact, quite the contrary...
 
Skallagrim said:
My issue with your entire line of reasoning, at its core, is that you persistently fail and/or refuse to engage with my actual argument. Since I know you to be a reasonable conversationalist from what I've seen and experienced on this site, I'll readily assume that this is some kind of miscommunication. I'm going to outline the issue by repeating the basic arguments and demonstrating the logical error that occurs. This is going to be a bit long, and may seem smwhat pedantic, but I genuinely think that you're missing the core of my argument. (Or, in other words: your responses don't disprove my statements, and don't even actually answer my statements at all.)



My first statement: "The ideal is a largely conservative and religious society, and a constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives."

Your response: "I don't want a religious society. I want a secular society and constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives."

My second statement: "Secular societies have never yet produced a constrained government that doesn't interfere in people's lives. Conservative and Christian societies have. There is evidence that my ideal can be put into practice. Do you have evidence that your ideal has ever worked out?"

Your response: "Conservative and Christian societies have also led to interfering, bad goverments."

My third statement: "Yes. they have. But history shows that they can lead to good outcomes, too, and repeatedly have. Where is the evidence that secular societies can and have done the same?"

Your response: "I don't need to provide evidence, I said it was an ideal. The fact that I've given examples of conservative and Christian societies producing bad outcomes is proof that I'm right."



...And that's where we are now. Do you see the error in your reasoning? The fact that conservative and Christian societies can and do lead to bad outcomes at times is not proof that you are right. Because I have also provided proof that they can and do lead to good outcomes. This means that the track record of conservative and Christian societies as an ideal is, at worst, mixed. To prove that your ideal is superior, you need to demonstrate that the track record of secular societies is better. If you can prove that, you have an actual argument.

Until such time, your position is ultimately that my ideal is bad because it isn't perfect (i.e. also leads to bad outcomes at times), and we should therefore do what you suggest instead... even though you have given no evidence that it has ever led to better outcomes, and I have ample evidence that it typically leads to worse outcomes.

For the sake of clarifying the problem, allow me to now reproduce an argument that I've had with leftists many times. I'm pretty sure you've had it with them too. Here goes:



My first statement: "The ideal is a largely capitalist society, where most people can live good lives."

Their response: "I don't want a capitalist society. I want a socialist society where most people can live good lives."

My second statement: "Socialist societies have never yet caused the majority of the populace to live good lives. Capitalist societies have. There is evidence that my capitalist ideal can be put into practice. Do you have evidence that your socialist ideal has ever worked out?"

Their response: "Capitalist societies have also led to all sorts of abuses."

My third statement: "Yes. they have. But history shows that they can lead to good outcomes, too, and repeatedly have. Where is the evidence that socialist societies can and have done the same?"

Their response: "I don't need to provide evidence, I said it was an ideal. The fact that I've given examples of capitalist societies producing bad outcomes is proof that I'm right and that capitalism should be discarded in favour of socialism."



And this isn't even a bit of sophistry that I'm making up. This is a distilled form of an argument that I'm pretty sure is familiar to most everyone on this site. If anything, I've made the socialist a bit more honest than they typically are in real discussions, in order to better mimic your style (which is far more honest than that of a socialist). But I'm sure you see the issue. Your insistence on an ideal for which you provide no proof of practical functionality is all too recognisable to me. As is the tendency to equate "this isn't perfect" and "this is therefore entirely worthless".

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Capitalism isn't perfect, because humans aren't perfect; but that is no reason to throw it out and choose socialism instead. And conservative Christian societies aren't perfect, either, for the exact same reason; but that, too, is no reason to reject conservatism and Christianity and opt for progressivism and secularism instead.

If, at long last, a socialist can provide me an example of socialism actually working as advertised (and sustaining itself in the long term), I'll certainly take that under advisement as evidence that it can work, under certain conditions. Yet such evidence has never yet been provided. And if someone can provide the same evidence for secularism working out as advertised, my resonse will be the same. Yet that evidence also remains curiously absent. Indeed, even you (someone many times more honest than any leftist) studiously refused to provide any such evidence. And if you do forgive me for saying it so harshly: I'm pretty sure that this is because we both know that such evidence doesn't exist.

The very doctrine of separation of Church and state as a political concept can be traced back to Saint Augustine. Christianity birthed this idea. When Christianity was chucked out of the window, the immediate result was... Robespierre. So when it comes to track records, my quest for "a government that doesn't fuck us all over horribly" continues to lead me into the embrace of Christianity, and guides me far away from the cold and deathly grip of secularism. Not because Christianity is a guarantee of good outcomes, but because it demonstrably can produce good outcomes. Secularism can thus far claim nothing of the sort. In fact, quite the contrary...
Click to expand...
The fact you do not understand that the US gov is a secular gov and always has been, instead of a 'Christian' gov at any time, shows where a fundamental disconnect is happening.

And do not conflate 'secular' with 'socialist'.
 
Bacle said:
The fact you do not understand that the US gov is a secular gov and always has been, instead of a 'Christian' gov at any time, shows where a fundamental disconnect is happening.

And do not conflate 'secular' with 'socialist'.
Click to expand...

You haven't read very well at all, because your post rests on two complete misapprehensions.

1) From the very beginning, and in the post you quote as well, I spoke of a "conservative and Christian society", not a government, and the whole debate has been whether it's preferable for society to be overwhelmingly Christian, or overwhelmingly secular. So... you're the one conflating things here (namely 'society' and 'government').

2) I didn't conflate secular and socialist, I was equating the error in reasoning that I see here to one that I recognised from debates with socialists. As I explicitly said. You simply didn't read.
 
Bacle said:
The fact you do not understand that the US gov is a secular gov and always has been, instead of a 'Christian' gov at any time, shows where a fundamental disconnect is happening.
Click to expand...
The founders were very Christian and based much of their stuff on Christian principles. They purposefully didn't choose a state religion so that people could engage in their personal freedom to worship as they wished. Freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

Don't confuse not mandating a official state religion with secularism. They most assuredly would vehemently disagree.
 
Captain X said:
I used an example to prove my point. This does not in any way translate into advocating for anything else animals do. That's just a bullshit arguments that Leftists like to use, too. Like it or not, homosexuality and bisexuality are "normal" in the sense that they have always existed in both humans and other animals, no matter what your religion might have to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine. Still falls under naturalism fallacy though. Which doesn’t disprove the thrust of my argument.
 
Skallagrim said:
You haven't read very well at all, because your post rests on two complete misapprehensions.

1) From the very beginning, and in the post you quote as well, I spoke of a "conservative and Christian society", not a government, and the whole debate has been whether it's preferable for society to be overwhelmingly Christian, or overwhelmingly secular. So... you're the one conflating things here (namely 'society' and 'government').
Click to expand...
Except the whole debate is about people wanting to effectively justify creating a theocratic state as backlash to the Left's excesses, and thus the whole 'Christian society, not Christian gov' argument kinda goes out the window for their desired end-state.

People aren't cheering for an American Pinochet because they want to keep separation of church and state, or allow 'social experimentation/degeneracy', in whatever way they define it, to exist within the protection of the law in the US.
Skallagrim said:
2) I didn't conflate secular and socialist, I was equating the error in reasoning that I see here to one that I recognised from debates with socialists. As I explicitly said. You simply didn't read.
Click to expand...
No, I did and this part:
Skallagrim said:
Secularism can thus far claim nothing of the sort. In fact, quite the contrary...
Click to expand...
Ignores secularism, and fears of what would happen if the gov showed societal/legal favor to any religion, is why the US has separation of church and state built into our founding document.
Bigking321 said:
The founders were very Christian and based much of their stuff on Christian principles. They purposefully didn't choose a state religion so that people could engage in their personal freedom to worship as they wished. Freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

Don't confuse not mandating a official state religion with secularism. They most assuredly would vehemently disagree.
Click to expand...
'Not mandating a state religion' is one of the core tenants of secularist thought, and was rather different from many nations at the time, which is part of what made the US so different.

These days the idea of the state being able to mandate religious doctrine/positions/power is so odd specifically because the US was one of the first to break from that idea, and then had many others follow suite after the fact.
 
Bigking321 said:
The founders were very Christian and based much of their stuff on Christian principles. They purposefully didn't choose a state religion so that people could engage in their personal freedom to worship as they wished. Freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

Don't confuse not mandating a official state religion with secularism. They most assuredly would vehemently disagree.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse a government using its religion to force ideals with freedom of religion.

Basically, forcing the government to abide by secular ideals goes against that freedom of religion as certain religions have diffrent ideals then that of Christians
 
Captain X said:
I used an example to prove my point. This does not in any way translate into advocating for anything else animals do. That's just a bullshit arguments that Leftists like to use, too. Like it or not, homosexuality and bisexuality are "normal" in the sense that they have always existed in both humans and other animals, no matter what your religion might have to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
Every example I ever saw of "homosexual animal" was actually more of a "leg humper fucking literally anything" which is more accurately termed as "pansexual". Not an actual homosexual animal (exclusively same gender attraction)

Also, I think people misuse the word "natural".
Typically when someone makes an appeal to "naturalness" of something, they are actually trying to make an appeal to biological fitness

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Being born deformed and then dying from your deformity is technically natural too.
But when someone says "that is just not natural" they don't mean that, they mean biological fitness instead.
 
Bacle said:
Except the whole debate is about people wanting to effectively justify creating a theocratic state as backlash to the Left's excesses, and thus the whole 'Christian society, not Christian gov' argument kinda goes out the window for their desired end-state.

People aren't cheering for an American Pinochet because they want to keep separation of church and state, or allow 'social experimentation/degeneracy', in whatever way they define it, to exist within the protection of the law in the US.

No, I did and this part:

Ignores secularism, and fears of what would happen if the gov showed societal/legal favor to any religion, is why the US has separation of church and state built into our founding document.

'Not mandating a state religion' is one of the core tenants of secularist thought, and was rather different from many nations at the time, which is part of what made the US so different.

These days the idea of the state being able to mandate religious doctrine/positions/power is so odd specifically because the US was one of the first to break from that idea, and then had many others follow suite after the fact.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you still haven't read, and that your response is purely based on selective quoting with the aim of presenting your own biased view on this matter, without at any point responding the actual arguments at hand. The debate isn't about "people wanting to effectively justify creating a theocratic state as backlash to the Left's excesses". The debate is about the fact that certain people incorrectly assume that a conservative, Christian society would do that. The debate is about the fact that this kind of totalitarianism is demonstrably what the progressive, secular left has done every chance they got; and that it's demonstrably not the norm for conservative Christians.

You paint your own boogeyman onto the discussion, and pretend that your fevered imaginings are the matter at hand. They're not. The matter at hand is whether the concepts of personal liberties as we know them were introduced by Christians or by secularists. Spoiler: they were all introduced by Christians, and only ever infringed upon by secularists. For all sane people, that's pretty much the end of the debate. It proves the truth of things: Christianity and conservatism, while not some panacea, without question yield better results than secularism ever has. Point proven, end of debate.

If you want to keep going after that, feel free-- but I'm not inclined to keep participating in a nonsense discussion that's rooted only in fact-free imaginings and unsubstantiated opinions, evidently motivated by an emotionally-driven bias.



Even regardless of the above, I must add that the frankly bizarre reference to Pinochet (completely off-topic) shows how far out you are when to comes to this. You invent complete tangents that have nothing to with the topic. There is no point in talking about this if you insist on inhabiting some different reality for the duration of the conversation. As such, I'm not going to continue this weird line of debate that you're trying to go off on. Find someone else to discuss Pinochet, okay? I wasn't talking about anything even relating to him.
 
Last edited:
Zyobot said:
Not sure where you’re figuring that?

Assuming it comes from Sodom and Gomorrah, though really, it always amuses me how people will cherry-pick which Biblical passages they observe when it’s convenient, and which ones they don’t (such as Leviticus passages about not mixing fabrics or whatever).

Granted, the Leviticus example can be explained by culturally specific warnings not to emulate the Canaanites, which is understandable in proper context. However, that’s specific to the time and culture the Israelites lived in — and thus, probably irrelevant for us. If we ignore that, then I think we can likewise ignore the Old Testament’s usual wisdom on homosexuality, at least when it comes to average gay people who are just like you or me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry this is just the most ignorant thing before trying these gotchas first study. The Bible has moral laws that apply to everyone, and ceremonial and purity laws that only apply to the Hewbrews. Even modern Orthodox Jews acknowledge this you as a gentile can’t blaspheme, do adultery, idolatry, or murder just like Jews can’t. However you are allowed to wear whatever you want and eat what you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top