JPcelticfc wrote:Saxi and BBS. You two are my heroes of the day.
Congratulations.
Thanks but it's not like I'm saying anything original. I'm just parroting what the mainstream, consensus viewpoint is; I have no qualifications on ethnography or anthropology, my only contribution here is a qualitative judgment between a conclusion reached by Newt Gingrich and reported "The Jewish Channel" and a conclusion reached by Johns Hopkins University researchers and published in a tier 1 peer-reviewed journal. Any adult human with average vision, hearing, and motor reflexes, and a high school diploma, should be able to assess the relative quality and veracity of any source. (But, I suppose if 100% of humans could, there would be no such thing as 419 scams; "Israel" is kinda a big 419 scam.)
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:Did you read the article you just posted? Nothing in the Wikipedia article supports your (Newt Gingrich's) claim that "Palestinians don't exist." Posting a random article and then just adding on "see, I told you so," is a waste of your time and - more importantly - a waste of mine.
But I've never ever stated any agreement with Newt Gringrich's position in any manner whatsoever. My point was that there is no such notion of a "Palestinian" as a specific unified ethnic culture with a rich and deep history.
And saxi has already addressed that point, but you ignored it, so... the ball's still in your hands.
I have no idea what this Gingrich said, how about you quote him and we'll see if they're saying the same thing?
Haha, that's pretty good! I rolled my eyes and then realized you weren't tzor.
Who is this Tzor character, how about you quote him? Btw the balls are always in your hands BBS. Speaking of that I wonder if there's room for another set? Or are your hands full? I've heard you have gentle hands, Nietzsche recommended you. He gave me this gift card, it says first time's free, what is your regular price?
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
If someone in the forum supports anti-Semitic views, what should be done with them?
If someone in the forum supports anti-Palestinian views, what should be done with them?
If there's a discrepancy between your answers, then you're likely being a racist/bigot.
Good bigotry vs bad bigotry my man.
Supporting Palestinians? Choice
Hating on Jews? Not cool brah.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
saxitoxin wrote:Did you read the article you just posted? Nothing in the Wikipedia article supports your (Newt Gingrich's) claim that "Palestinians don't exist." Posting a random article and then just adding on "see, I told you so," is a waste of your time and - more importantly - a waste of mine.
But I've never ever stated any agreement with Newt Gringrich's position in any manner whatsoever. My point was that there is no such notion of a "Palestinian" as a specific unified ethnic culture with a rich and deep history.
And saxi has already addressed that point, but you ignored it, so... the ball's still in your hands.
In reality he's addressed anything but a reference to evidence of a unified Palestinian culture prior to the Nazi backed government of the early 20th century. In reality the modern concept of Palestinian nationalism exists primarily to oppose Judaism in the area.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:Did you read the article you just posted? Nothing in the Wikipedia article supports your (Newt Gingrich's) claim that "Palestinians don't exist." Posting a random article and then just adding on "see, I told you so," is a waste of your time and - more importantly - a waste of mine.
But I've never ever stated any agreement with Newt Gringrich's position in any manner whatsoever. My point was that there is no such notion of a "Palestinian" as a specific unified ethnic culture with a rich and deep history.
And saxi has already addressed that point, but you ignored it, so... the ball's still in your hands.
Okay, okay. Calm down.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:Did you read the article you just posted? Nothing in the Wikipedia article supports your (Newt Gingrich's) claim that "Palestinians don't exist." Posting a random article and then just adding on "see, I told you so," is a waste of your time and - more importantly - a waste of mine.
But I've never ever stated any agreement with Newt Gringrich's position in any manner whatsoever. My point was that there is no such notion of a "Palestinian" as a specific unified ethnic culture with a rich and deep history.
And saxi has already addressed that point, but you ignored it, so... the ball's still in your hands.
In reality he's addressed anything but a reference to evidence of a unified Palestinian culture prior to the Nazi backed government of the early 20th century. In reality the modern concept of Palestinian nationalism exists primarily to oppose Judaism in the area.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism. If you have a problem with discussion of the topic take it up with him.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
We've already addressed your asinine posts of "proto-nationalism cuz Hitler" arguments.
Oh? And what was the conclusion?
I find this trend where you tell people "we've addressed X" or "stick to subject Y" without explaining what X or Y refer to quite tedious. It makes it very difficult to follow your train of thought when you constantly make vague references to things people may or may not have actually said and then instruct people to discuss a subject which you don't specify.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Again hypocrtiical because rather than stating the obvious, you do actually flame members here:
Saxitoxin wrote:You are a crude little goblin of a man consumed by searing hate for people who are different from you.
Yes, because that's sooo much better than stating the obvious, that you've been promoting antisemitism here for some time, and getting a pass for it from the mods.
Do carry on trying to take the high road while slinging mud and hate left and right. We'll see where it gets ya.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism. If you have a problem with discussion of the topic take it up with him.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
We've already addressed your asinine posts of "proto-nationalism cuz Hitler" arguments.
Oh? And what was the conclusion?
I find this trend where you tell people "we've addressed X" or "stick to subject Y" without explaining what X or Y refer to quite tedious. It makes it very difficult to follow your train of thought when you constantly make vague references to things people may or may not have actually said and then instruct people to discuss a subject which you don't specify.
Dude, I've already explained my position on this issue. If you bothered to READ--and more importantly UNDERSTAND AND QUESTION DIRECTLY--my past posts, then I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
I really want a sincere debate about the issue, but if you keep up your silly approach, then I have no incentive to address you seriously.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Again hypocrtiical because rather than stating the obvious, you do actually flame members here:
Saxitoxin wrote:You are a crude little goblin of a man consumed by searing hate for people who are different from you.
No, that was a factual observation based on your tendency to post long-winded, anti-Arab / anti-Black screeds and rants when you have an episode, and also because of the child porn accusations you got caught up in.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism. If you have a problem with discussion of the topic take it up with him.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
We've already addressed your asinine posts of "proto-nationalism cuz Hitler" arguments.
Oh? And what was the conclusion?
I find this trend where you tell people "we've addressed X" or "stick to subject Y" without explaining what X or Y refer to quite tedious. It makes it very difficult to follow your train of thought when you constantly make vague references to things people may or may not have actually said and then instruct people to discuss a subject which you don't specify.
Dude, I've already explained my position on this issue. If you bothered to READ--and more importantly UNDERSTAND AND QUESTION DIRECTLY--my past posts, then I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
I really want a sincere debate about the issue, but if you keep up your silly approach, then I have no incentive to address you seriously.
I have no idea what you're talking about. There's at least three subjects that you could be referring to as "the issue" and looking back through 5 pages for your posts here (time I'll never get back) I see very little explanation of anything. I see a lot of vague questions and snarky one liners that do more to obscure the subject than focus on it, whatever it may be, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is you want to discuss or where you've explained your position on anything.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Again hypocrtiical because rather than stating the obvious, you do actually flame members here:
Saxitoxin wrote:You are a crude little goblin of a man consumed by searing hate for people who are different from you.
No, that was a factual observation based on your tendency to post long-winded, anti-Arab / anti-Black screeds and rants when you have an episode, and also because of the child porn accusations you got caught up in.
When you say "childporn" do you mean this age:
Or this age:
All pornography containing someone under the age of 18 is technically considered childporn, but idiots who refer to mid/late teenage nudity as childporn should seriously be shot.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
Gillipig wrote:idiots who refer to mid/late teenage nudity as childporn should seriously be shot.
You want to shoot people for the observation that perhaps not every 17 year old female is fully mature yet and perhaps not ready to make adult decisions about something that will be on their internet record for the rest of their lives? You're disgusting.
Ha! I missed that. There was no child porn, just Saxi trolling because I guess he thinks its funny to joke about kiddie porn.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
Gillipig wrote:idiots who refer to mid/late teenage nudity as childporn should seriously be shot.
You want to shoot people for the observation that perhaps not every 17 year old female is fully mature yet and perhaps not ready to make adult decisions about something that will be on their internet record for the rest of their lives? You're disgusting.
You try to blur the difference between children being molested and teenagers having sex, and that's why you should be shot.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The lineage of the Jews have nothing to do with this current topic. Why would you distract us with this? (maybe it's a rhetoric strategy).
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Again hypocrtiical because rather than stating the obvious, you do actually flame members here:
Saxitoxin wrote:You are a crude little goblin of a man consumed by searing hate for people who are different from you.
No, that was a factual observation based on your tendency to post long-winded, anti-Arab / anti-Black screeds and rants when you have an episode, and also because of the child porn accusations you got caught up in.
When you say "childporn" do you mean this age:
You'll have to ask GabonX. He was the one accused of posting child porn.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Gillipig wrote:idiots who refer to mid/late teenage nudity as childporn should seriously be shot.
You want to shoot people for the observation that perhaps not every 17 year old female is fully mature yet and perhaps not ready to make adult decisions about something that will be on their internet record for the rest of their lives? You're disgusting.
You try to blur the difference between children being molested and teenagers having sex, and that's why you should be shot.
The line is blurry. Are you ready to set a clear dividing line or age between when it becomes molestation/child pornography and when it becomes consensual, adult sex?
GabonX wrote:
Saxitoxin brought it up to support his antisemitism.
reported for flaming
Again hypocrtiical because rather than stating the obvious, you do actually flame members here:
Saxitoxin wrote:You are a crude little goblin of a man consumed by searing hate for people who are different from you.
No, that was a factual observation based on your tendency to post long-winded, anti-Arab / anti-Black screeds and rants when you have an episode, and also because of the child porn accusations you got caught up in.
When you say "childporn" do you mean this age:
You'll have to ask GabonX. He was the one accused of posting child porn.
You were the one who brought it up, you should know, if you don't know you all you're doing is spreading rumours. Kind of a cheap tactic to use in an argument don't you think?
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
Gillipig wrote:idiots who refer to mid/late teenage nudity as childporn should seriously be shot.
You want to shoot people for the observation that perhaps not every 17 year old female is fully mature yet and perhaps not ready to make adult decisions about something that will be on their internet record for the rest of their lives? You're disgusting.
You try to blur the difference between children being molested and teenagers having sex, and that's why you should be shot.
The line is blurry. Are you ready to set a clear dividing line or age between when it becomes molestation/child pornography and when it becomes consensual, adult sex?
Don't you think it would be confusing if the word used to refer to stealing an apple and robbing a bank were the same? If you use the word "bankrobbery" to refer to everything from stealing apples to pickpocketing to home break ins to bank robbery, you're a) confusing people, and b) uneccesarily blurring the lines between different sorts of crimes. Now when we're talking about underaged nudity, using "childporn" to refer to a 17 year old having sex on camera and a 9 year old being molested on camera is unneccesarily blurring the lines and confusing people.
For example, if GabonX posted a picture of a 17 year old engaging in sex it would not alter my opinion of him at all, if he on the other hand did the same with a 9 year old, I would consider him a sick sob. You're unneccesarily blurring lines when you treat these very different scenarios equally under the same name.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
Gillipig wrote:For example, if GabonX posted a picture of a 17 year old engaging in sex it would not alter my opinion of him at all, if he on the other hand did the same with a 9 year old, I would consider him a sick sob.
How are we supposed to know the exact ages involved? Wouldn't a better policy just be not to allow GabonX to post those kind of images in the first place?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
