POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Daswiruch]

it's a good thing that i didn't want to get involved and didn't try to in the first place
i was simply pointing out that arguing and getting pissy is what gave you your bad reputation on your last account

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

why are all the hillary supporters on the internet so quiet.

[Drydess]

why are all the hillary supporters on the internet so quiet.

hey this is the one thing i like about clinton supporters, don't jinx it

[Poliwhirl]

when did i dismiss your argument or even argue with you in the first place? all i've said in all this was

wasn't talking about you necessarily, but the "it all makes sense" post comes off as very dismissive towards my argument. your other post was good, its a normal valid point to bring up in a discussion, so i responded to it in what i hope was a similar valid point to bring up.

why are all the hillary supporters on the internet so quiet.

they're all paid lol

[Psych36]

a bad leader can convince a whole lot of people to do a whole lot of bad things. even ignoring the fact that government workers/agents/soldiers cannot disobey these rules, civilians are typically in no place to oppose in places and situations like this. the reason why there is such a stark difference in the beliefs of middle-eastern-based islam and the united states is because the united states (currently) has religious freedom, meaning you don't have to follow any religions in a specific way. unsurprisingly, when given the choice of following the peaceful values of islam in the untied states, most people take it.this is the most nonsensical alt-right sentence i've ever seen in my life, i think.interesting how i actually use sourced and logic-based discussion to try to convince some of you to consider my point of view, and you all fall back on the easier alternative of dismissing my argument completely.

i left of my own accord (well 75% my own accord) last time, and i certainly didn't come back to argue with people who refuse to discuss a single thing beyond calling me a tumblr normie liberal cuck. i only began this discussion because certain things are important to me, like not being tribal, and i will try to explain why i think a certain post is tribal since it's one of the few things i can do to help lessen the presence of racism on this forum. if you guys aren't ready to actually engage in a normal, civil discussion, then i'm not going to reply to your posts in regards to this matter beyond this.

i don't mind in the slightest if you try to dispute my points, it wouldn't be a discussion if you all immediately listened to what i said. but please, if you aren't going to take this seriously, there's no need to get involved.

You still despite two pages of rambling have ignored my point about racism. Islam isn't a race it's a set of ideas that are meant to be interrogated. And that's completely false Independent Pew Research polls show the mainstream support for the Governments actions in conservative Islamic countries. Nearly every school of Islam teaches that homoloveuality should be punishable by death and a women's worth is less than half of a man. And if they have changed like you said why do over 52% of British "integrated" Muslims support punishment for Homoloveuality?

[PhantOS]

Al-Baqara, 24: "guard against the fire, the fuel of which will be human beings, and stones, prepared for the nonbelievers"

Undeniable proof that islam is a religion of peace

[Poliwhirl]

You still despite two pages of rambling have ignored my point about racism. Islam isn't a race it's a set of ideas that are meant to be interrogated. And that's completely false Independent Pew Research polls show the mainstream support for the Governments actions in conservative Islamic countries. Nearly every school of Islam teaches that homoloveuality should be punishable by death and a women's worth is less than half of a man. And if they have changed like you said why do over 52% of British "integrated" Muslims support punishment for Homoloveuality?

well you're right i suppose. racism wasn't the correct word to use in that sentence, but lets be real for a second i dont think using the word "islamaphobic" would have gone well either.

i looked into the 52% statistic, and found this:
"I’m hardly surprised that 52 per cent don’t think homoloveuality should be legal. They simply haven't had the time and space to evolve their thinking.

It's fuelled by secrecy.

Muslims don’t talk about difficult things related to relationships and love. On a religious level, it’s seen as taboo and on a more practical level, some British Muslims don’t share the native language of their parents, meaning those awkward conversations are lost in translation."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-gay-british-muslim-this-is-what-i-think-of-the-survey-finding-over-half-of-british-muslims-want-a6978881.html

i think muslims can hold a lot of bigoted views, and so can christians, and that they will eventually change as the general culture of society grows more tolerant of homoloveuality. but the thing here is that while bigoted, they are not violent on a terroristic level, and so they are typically not so extreme as to be unable to change. i'm not going to overstep my own knowledge and state that the reason why many muslims are still stuck in a strict mindset is also because of the way islam is enforced in middle-eastern countries, because i don't know that. however, i think that given enough time, especially if crises in the middle east resolve, these mindsets can begin to change, but it WILL take time. (important to add: it will also take tolerance and understanding from others.)

[Conan]

why are all the hillary supporters on the internet so quiet.

probably cause they dont want to get shouted down and get into needless arguments

also probably cause internet political arguments are pretty pointless since the vast majority wont change their voting stance despite whatever arguments one may make

[otto-san]

also consider if people are arguing against islam or just islamism. because i would probably consider myself to be against the latter

Al-Baqara, 24: "guard against the fire, the fuel of which will be human beings, and stones, prepared for the nonbelievers"

Undeniable proof that islam is a religion of peace

a source for those wondering:
http://quran.com/2

and in context it seems to basically be saying that people who don't believe in their god will go to hell. which isn't too unfamiliar

[Bisjac]

probably cause they dont want to get shouted down and get into needless arguments

also probably cause internet political arguments are pretty pointless since the vast majority wont change their voting stance despite whatever arguments one may make

so sanders and Annoying Orange supporters inherently like to discuss politics, while hillary people are just really private?
that still dosnt answer my question actually.

[Cappytaino]

it's also a fallacy to assume that something true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole.

the argument isn't just a lazy "ah yes, but those people aren't actually muslim." for it to count as a no true scotsman, you would have to be actively trying to dismiss the existence of real problems by just claiming that the criticism can't apply because it's not a part of the group. i've actually heard the no true scotsman fallacy used in anti-muslim argument as well, saying that the "good muslims" are supposedly not real muslims. it becomes a fallacy when it's used to avoid argumentation by simply excluding cases you don't want to include.
to be fair kimon isn't really being...unreasonable. like he's not being overly inflammatory and he's actually trying to bring up points. i mean i wouldn't have picked this battle knowing the blockland forums but like...come on dude.

but that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. I think we have the same idea, that often, people cherry pick terror statistics by attempting to claim that the attacker was not practicing Islam properly and therefore shouldn't be counted as a Muslim.

[Psych36]

well you're right i suppose. racism wasn't the correct word to use in that sentence, but lets be real for a second i dont think using the word "islamaphobic" would have gone well either.

i looked into the 52% statistic, and found this:
"I’m hardly surprised that 52 per cent don’t think homoloveuality should be legal. They simply haven't had the time and space to evolve their thinking.

It's fuelled by secrecy.

Muslims don’t talk about difficult things related to relationships and love. On a religious level, it’s seen as taboo and on a more practical level, some British Muslims don’t share the native language of their parents, meaning those awkward conversations are lost in translation."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-gay-british-muslim-this-is-what-i-think-of-the-survey-finding-over-half-of-british-muslims-want-a6978881.html

i think muslims can hold a lot of bigoted views, and so can christians, and that they will eventually change as the general culture of society grows more tolerant of homoloveuality. but the thing here is that while bigoted, they are not violent on a terroristic level, and so they are typically not so extreme as to be unable to change. i'm not going to overstep my own knowledge and state that the reason why many muslims are still stuck in a strict mindset is also because of the way islam is enforced in middle-eastern countries, because i don't know that. however, i think that given enough time, especially if crises in the middle east resolve, these mindsets can begin to change, but it WILL take time. (important to add: it will also take tolerance and understanding from others.)

The crises's in the middle east aren't the reasoning behind their bigotry it's only an excuse. I'm sure they can change but do they really want to? Unless secularism is adopted by the people of the middle east there will only ever be despots.

[Psych36]

so sanders and Annoying Orange supporters inherently like to discuss politics, while hillary people are just really private?
that still dosnt answer my question actually.

Because Hillary supporters are lowkey ashamed of the criminal they support and have no valid discourse to present.

[otto-san]

but that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. I think we have the same idea, that often, people cherry pick terror statistics by attempting to claim that the attacker was not practicing Islam properly and therefore shouldn't be counted as a Muslim.

fair enough, though the heart of the argument was really more so that those terror attacks are politically motivated, not religiously inspired

The crises's in the middle east aren't the reasoning behind their bigotry it's only an excuse. I'm sure they can change but do they really want to?

if your entire life is stuff and you're scared and you have no power to do anything about it, unconventional means are the natural progression. that's why protests, riots, and rebellions happen. they aren't going to want to change because these methods are all they can think to do. obviously that doesn't mean it's right, but people are a product of their environment above all else

edit: upon thinking about what you said for more than a second you're referring to something else and all i have to say is that traditional prejudice is dumb and it's a human problem, not just a muslim problem

[Poliwhirl]

The crises's in the middle east aren't the reasoning behind their bigotry it's only an excuse. I'm sure they can change but do they really want to?

they dont want to. nobody truly wants to. but change isn't sparked by people suddenly deciding that they WANT to change their views. it takes time and other people explaining directly or indirectly why that kind of bigotry generally isn't accepted for people to realize that maybe they shouldn't think like that. i mean that hasn't TRULY happened for the general populous anywhere, so it might take quite some time, but i'm almost positive that it will begin to change. or maybe that's just optimism.

so sanders and Annoying Orange supporters inherently like to discuss politics, while hillary people are just really private?
that still dosnt answer my question actually.

it is my personal belief that the people who support her are either doing it to prevent a Annoying Orange presidency, dont care enough to support her/ pay attention beyond shes a woman and shes a clinton, or they are getting payed to support her and they just aren't getting payed enough to CONSISTENTLY support her.