I am a “regular” flyer and a stoner and I never fail to bring with me a sample of devil’s lettuce when I’m leaving for extended period of time and never once I’ve had any issue bringing my hazardous material with me.
One time I even embarked with a small firework in my wallet I forgot I placed there after a party and none bat an eye.
Security level: top (not gun)
The best steps would be the ones taking them to the guillotine
That’s really metal \m/ \m/ \m/ \m/ \m/ \m/ \m/ \m/
Content moderation is gonna be tough, especially when advertising for absolute freedom of speech. It’s possible trolls will ruin the environment in a very short time if moderation and its rules wouldn’t be very clear and applied when necessary
If I may spend my two cents in this discussion I’d like to also propose Mr. Hicks as one of the true thinkers and philosopher of the last century. He had a lot in common with George from a social analysis standpoint and he also saw us humans as bi-faced entities capable of producing both the nastiest and the most beautiful acts while recognising that usually the lowest and most destructive instincts were the one guiding our choices.
As George did for you he also helped me forming my vision of the world and its current state of affairs while also making me laugh manically.
A huge thanks to both these men for helping some of us finding a way to navigate through this sensless journey, you’ll not be forgotten
Well, the statue will be more than material when he will be judged by the law.
The most funny thing is that you believe the infernal potentates are all aligned and following a ruler. By definition the hellish powers are independent and individual in their scopes and objectives, Satan fought God exactly because he didn’t recognize its ultimate authority over his own free will. Confusing Satan with Baphomet is like confusing Drumpf and Putin: they both are evil and terrible people supporting one another when their interests collide while also ready to jump at each other throat should the situation require so, but I would never accuse Drumpf of having moved war to Ukraine since it was Putin to do so.
But I don’t see you as a reasonable person so I presume this distinction will fall flat at your feet. Oh well, nothing bad, the guy will still be judged for his actions and will suffer the consequences (hopefully) for his sensless violence. Keep seething in your ignorance good boy
Okay, you go first tho. I’m following you, believe me, just jump from the bridge first
Kinda sure that’s not Satan but Baphomet. Completely different characters if you know what you are talking about; which is not your case since your Christian mindset doesn’t allow for the retaining of useful information as it is normal for a sheep mindset
That’s not Satan, that’s Baphomet.
A bit of demonology (or culture in general) can go a long way in helping these people avoiding this kind of nonsensical responses.
It’s like if someone were to deface a statue of the archangel Michael and I went on a tirade about how evil all the cherubims really were. Michael is an archangel, not a cherubim. Similar but not the same.
Love how you ran away from your stance as soon as you were required to provide the evidences cited in your comment. Really a true conservative
Ah yes, the Grand Old Projection party.
The “party” p is lowercase because the name is not referring to a proper political party but rather to a group of people came together to have fun among themselves while making the lives of everyone else a living hell, just like frats do during off-seasons.
I’d much prefer a panel if doctors deciding my fate rather than my mother or my father who may be blinded by their own emotions.
Even more if my family members were part of a sect like the Jehovah’s witnesses, for whom not even blood transfusions are acceptable. How stupid do you have to be to leave a loved one to die just to follow the instructions given by illiterate people living 2000 years ago? This kind of decisions should be informed but should also have limits around them. Keeping religion outside if this realm should be a very clear one for instance
First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.
But they are, would your laws be stricter the appearance of these mass shootings would drop significantly since they perpetrators would have to go through a much mor rigorous screening process before being allowed near a firearm. The copycats and emulators are able to repeat these crimes ALSO because they have easy access to firearms, don’t act like this wouldn’t be a root cause for the mass shooting problem
Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime
Those who commit small-scale gun crime use the same laws in place for mass-shooters and everybody else to access firearms used in their crimes
Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).
The Australian experience after the mass shooting in Port Arthur at the end of the 90ies tell a different story and it shows that guns buyback/confiscation can and will reduce crime committed by guns
I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.
Tell that to the republicans, who see any intervention on the existing gun laws as an attack to the second amendment. More background checks? No thanks. Red flag laws? No thanks. Limiting firearms possession to those convicted of violent crimes? No thanks.
Who is the party operating according to feeling and who is the one operating according to common sense and logic? Let me give you a hint, it’s not the blue one who is using scare tactics to keep everything as it is
I’m really sorry to bother but the link provided does not work for me, I also tried to use the way back machine but it seems no one has saved a clear copy of the page so far… Have you another link to a non-paywalled version of the article to share by chance? Thank you for your help in any case!!
Once more if heritage didn’t naturally inherently change then there wouldn’t be anything to fight. Heritage changes.
You’re still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?
And because if enough people change course in culture and society adopts that heritage will change. If heritage didn’t change then conservatives wouldn’t need to give a shit about culture or society changing because heritage would stay the same.
That heritage will not change, it will disappear little by little while culture change around it. I notice that you didn’t reply to my comment about the southern American heritage, do you think it has changed from the '800 or is it still the same racist construct it was 200 years ago?
I am better. I am considering the general case.
Keep telling you that, you might start believing it
My heritage says I ought to be going to church every sunday. I don’t. Still get along great with the family and everyone at church.
You haven’t considered that the culture around you has slightly changed from the past I see. That’s because you don’t understand the difference between heritage and culture and this is also the reason why we are having this conversation, but you are too prideful to accept my definitions and challenging them while also refusing to give your own. Scared of being proven wrong?
The definition that you came up with has elements that no other definition has and which are counter to the usage of the concept of heritage by the entire rest of the world. That is the major reason why your definition lacks merit.
Please prove this point, don’t just put it there without evidence to corroborate it
Your definition is like defining weather as only being when its raining and claiming that the weather never changes.
My definition is like differentiating between weather and climate. They seem similar but if I state that “the weather hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” is a correct statement. If, on the other hand, I’d say that “the climate hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” I’d be wrong since climate is not related to a single couple of days but to a much larger time scale
when you are too stubborn to back down after saying something embarrassingly wrong you will run into that.
So we can assume that people talking about the same points over and over again without giving any merits to their beliefs are the cultured ones? I start to understand how you ended up being so lackluster in your debating skills
Weather is only when its raining and weather never changes.
You are confusing weather and climate like you confuse heritage and culture. A not very bright example from a not very bright mind, what else is there to say?
I’ll return to this conversation whenever you will feel like providing me with your definitions, until then I’m talking to a wall which cannot see its being made of bricks as the worst possible argument for a debate.
Have a good one in the meantime 👋🏼👋🏼
Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.
Once more, culture changes, heritage does not exactly because people FIGHT against the natural order of “everything flows” to keep their heritage the same as it always has been
When ol’ Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn’t destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.
You are still confusing heritage with culture: Mona Lisa is art and it fits in my definition of culture. Still no valid example of heritage changing over time, just another example of you failing to understand my definitions
They wouldn’t have to put effort into it if heritage couldn’t change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.
Conservatives are out to stop the changes in culture and society (culture war much?), they are using heritage as an excuse to explain why culture and society shouldn’t change
If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn’t ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if.
You accuse me of using conditionals in my replies but you are no better. I have countless examples of people casted out of their social circles for having messed with their heritages, do you have one single example of people messing with their group heritages without suffering any backlash? If yes please provide them
No I’m pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.
An example is a single case by definition. Do you want a more general one? Then explain to me why all religions call those who want to change their heritages heretics and have them expelled from their rankings if not dead. If they are lucky they will go on to create a new heritage, separated from the original one(see Martin Luther), if they are not they are put at the stake and burned (see Giordano Bruno)
It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual’s severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change.
That’s how culture wins on heritage, by cancelling it and substituting itself to it. Laws such as the civil rights act in America have helped minorities to find more rights for themselves but, even still today, the American heritage prevent many people from engaging with said minorities in a respectful way. Luckily we do have a set of laws nowadays which help us punishing these persons because culture has changed. In the meantime the southern American heritage is still as racist as it was in the '800
It doesn’t matter what they did
Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families
that doesn’t change that they were saying the same things you are saying.
No they were not. They were out to change these children’s Inuit heritage with their Christian one. I am trying to eliminate heritage for everyone and to substitute it with culture
You’re definition is made up.
My definition is mine by definition (sic), I already told you that. Challenge me on the merit of my definitions: take them, analyse them and provide me with logical reasons why they are false.
Until them stop repeating that my definitions are not the correct ones, I already gave them to you to prove you that heritage is considered as something passed down to old generations to the future ones. My caveat is that this something will not be changed by the receiving generation to keep it “as it always was” and to pass it to the next generation unchanged.
While you’re at it maybe try providing definitions for heritage and culture yourself. I could show you what substantial criticism is in real time if you were so kind to assume yourself at my level and not at an higher one
You don’t want to be like goebbels do you?
No, and that’s why I’m using different examples throughout our discussion. This and also the fact that repeating myself over and over again makes me bored
Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.
Heritage can’t change. You aren’t able to provide any single fact or example to support your points. Your debate capabilities are garbo.
Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn’t mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes
Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.
Because if heritage can’t change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can’t change then who is their opposition?
Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation
which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there?
It is but for a smaller proportion of the group. We see this among “white people” where a huge chunk of this crowd is moving towards culture while leaving its heritage behind. This has caused a huge stir in its most conservative representatives who are now fighting against this trend with all their forces (the so called war on the “woke agenda”). If heritage is naturally inclined to evolve can you explain all the efforts put up by conservative voices to avoid this natural process?
One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I’ve repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal
Yet you fail to provide me with this example which would destroy my view while also taking a W because you showed me that the specific examples I used are not universal
Also even your example doesn’t make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple’s family unit’s heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages.
That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition.
No you are not
I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right.
That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack
See this is an example of what I’m talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed.
It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground
Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with “culture” then that becomes heritage.
If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it’s tenants
And like I was pointing out that’s the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power. May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we’ll see.
Oh thank you for you kind consideration my master
Heritage can change. You’ve proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.
Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that
Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious.
Many historical groups arranging re-enactment events and commemorations, conservative political parties and religious groups would like to dissent with you about your stance. But I’m sure their opinions don’t count in your books
If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed.
That’s absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you’ll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group
That’s what I’m doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing.
No, you are not. You’re just repeating that my definitions are wrong without any supporting evidence. I’ve given you countless examples of heritage being unchanging and set in time while you refuse this without providing any reason or example. I refute your idea of heritage being a mutating concept and will continue to do so until you won’t provide me with a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed
Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can’t change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.
That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures
No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.
I already showed you that heritage cannot be changed from within, to make it change you have to act from outside with specific legislations. Also I’d suggest you to review what you wrote here because I think you made some mistakes in exposing what you want to do
depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can’t change.
No, I’m not. I’d have them supported by the state through specialized workers and institutions until a certified foster family can be found and then I’d have them moved in with this family to cancel and overwrite their heritage by giving them a modern culture. Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve.
Just to ease this discussion, can you please give your definition of heritage? Only to understand what you mean when talking about this subject because you are criticizing me for my definition without providing any supporting evidence to your rebuttals. Maybe if you’d explain what you mean with heritage I could show you where you are wrong at the heart of the issue
Culture and heritage do change over time
Culture change, heritage doesn’t. Heritage is the story of a people, of a tribe, of a family. You can’t change history on a whim.
Also, I gave you my personal definitions after providing you the official ones. If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions, don’t discard them as the not correct ones. We know they’re not the official definitions, I already gave you that and you asked for my own, now you gotta work with them.
Why would you enjoy participating in infant genital mutilation?
I wouldn’t, that’s why I want to stop it
That doesn’t mean that some people don’t build walls based on that but you assertion that its the only outcome is nonsense.
Never in my discussion I stated that it just builds wall, I am stating that it it is used as an excuse to build walls, which is way different
The different type of culture that exists in scientific fields is insufficient to operate as an entire societal culture. Even if we were to take your answer seriously as soon as you apply whatever science culture you think is best it will be saddled with heritage because heritage inherently happens by existing and having subsequent generations.
The usefulness of a culture in operating a society was not your question. You asked me to provide example if culture without heritage and I replied with “any modern scientific field” because that are (I hope we can agree on this) cultures which do not have heritage as their histories started in the second half of the 19th century, when we were first able to seriously study physics and chemistry at an atomic level thanks to technological advancements never seen before in human history
Do you know what xenophobia means?
Yes I do, I gave you the definition in my previous reply
Despising people because of their heritage or for simply having heritage
That’s not what xenophobia means
I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones.
Do you agree with this desire or not?
One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?
The correct name is Pim Tool, please