Debate thread

A single berserk reached us yesterday, after having come all the way over the mountains from the city of Willow, fourteen hundred miles away. He delivered to Alric a single package the size of a man's fist, wrapped in rags, and refuses to talk with anyone about events in the West.
User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 29 Jul 2016, 22:30

Lets get some pizzazz going to these threads. Unfortunately around election times, I find myself pondering for hours a day while at work pretty much every topic and debate out there. While most of them are just fluff, I feel that I've used enough brainpower to essentially debate myself every topic that I've thought about. In other words, I'll think of a topic, decide where I stand on it, then examine the pros and cons of it. Then moves into a mock debate with someone who would be for/against it and I put myself on each side. The end result is I win (obviously) but I have my opinion formed based on examining it thoroughly.

Here's one I thought about today:

Women make $0.70 cents for every $1 a man makes.

Blasphemy! This is an outrage. We need to do something. This is obviously discrimination against women in our country. Men are being paid more than women. Men are sexist bigots and women deserve equal pay as men. Blah blah blah...

This is the typical argument you will hear from most liberals out there when it comes to the gender pay 'inequality.'

First, lets understand about why there is inequality in the first place. It is to my knowledge that there are laws in place that men and women of equal experience, tenure, and merit are to be paid equally regardless of gender.

So, you're telling me that most businesses in the US are paying women less money? No. First of all, I am not aware of any institution that knowingly pays women less because of the fact they are women. I do recall a billion-dollar lawsuit against Walmart a few years back because women were being paid less. Alas, this was national news and obviously left a scar on Walmart's integrity. If a woman is working for a company and she isn't being paid the same as her equally-qualified male counterparts, then you probably are working for a backwards-ass company and should leave. Or, in the aforementioned case, bring about attention to it so that it can be rectified.

Okay Kirk, so there are laws, but men dominate positions like CEOs and politics.... women are obviously being discriminated against so that they cannot reach these positions.
^So what exactly is your argument? There are equal labor laws protecting people in the workplace from unfair discrimination based on their sex. Again, if there is an issue, then that person is entitled to contact their HR department, or simply seek new employment if they are unwilling to do anything about it. The last time I looked, there were numerous females in politics (unfortunately there is currently a huge cunt running for president), and females also do occupy CEO positions (GM- Mary Barra). So obviously females are capable of it, but perhaps they are... inferior in some way?

*Sidenote- I was terminated from a job because I filed a complaint with HR that I was being treated unfairly based on account of me being a male. I worked with a female-dominant staff (in a bank) and I was given extra tasks and dirty work simply because I was a guy and was stronger, etc. I also had to wear a suit and tie, while the women were allowed to wear casual shirts and jeans and tennis shoes. I filed a case with the EEOC, and was rejected on the grounds that since I was not categorized as a 'minority in the workplace' the case had no merit and would be dropped. So life goes, I dealt with it and moved on.

So then why is there still an income gap? What is causing this? The only industries that I know of where men and women performing equal tasks are paid unfairly are the adult film industry (porn) and the military. The former you could argue that women are subject to more degrading in films, etc., however she is voluntarily doing that line of work and gets paid up to 3x more than males working alongside her. Men and women are paid 100% equally in the military, but men are held to much higher PT standards than women. What is your argument there, liberals?

Kirk, its obviously because women are not as capable as men when it comes to performing physical activities.

Oh, so you're basically saying women are inferior and if they aren't as capable as their male counterparts, then they shouldn't be paid equally too, right?

Well it doesn't matter because they are paid fairly but women have physiological needs and have things to deal with that men don't.

Yes, I agree, but you are admitting I am right... but that leads me into my next argument...

Maternity leave-- this is one thing that obviously only women have to deal with. Men don't have to miss work for months at a time in order to give birth to a child. I agree that women should be given opportunity to birth and take care of their children as long as necessary (or to which the labor laws will currently indicate). While some companies may grant men paternity leave to help out at home, it is by no means mandatory. As a man, I do not really care if there is a big push for male paternity leave to actually become a thing, simply because I don't feel its absolutely warranted.

Women have to deal with giving birth- which is a major physical commitment. Meaning if a woman is birthing children, she can't work. Period. This means time out of her career which gives her less of a chance to work towards advancement within the company. Also, women are usually the primary caregivers for their children, so it is much more difficult for them to occupy jobs that are physically dangerous, extreme hours, or lots of travel (all of these types of jobs typically pay more than less-committed positions). Make sense? There is no glass ceiling (maybe there are certain cases of it within certain ass-backwards companies), but they are few and far between.

So, has your thinking changed yet about the disparity of income between men and women?
Most liberals will simply say that everything I've said is "the stupidest thing I've ever heard," and simply end the debate. Well, liberals, this is your chance to try to add your $0.02 cents in to try to help me understand why women earning $0.70 cents on the dollar to every man, is actually an issue?

Moving on.

Men dominate physically demanding jobs such as mining, logging, construction, and other blue-collar jobs that require being physically fit and specialized skills. Women may dominate positions like hair stylist, bank teller, or nursing. All of those are important jobs, but are you really going to argue that hair stylists should be paid the same amount as men performing some of the most dangerous jobs in the world? I think we all know the answer to that question.

So what is left at this point then?

Basically we've completely Mythbusted the original statistic of women earning less than men. We've explained some of the extremely logical, and fact-driven reasons why this stat is so. Women have equal if not MORE opportunity (because they are considered a "protected class" in the workforce) as men to earn equal pay.

Look at professional athletes. Male professional sports players earn A LOT more money than their female counterparts. Male sports is an industry. They garner loads and loads of revenue and they are more popular among males AND females when spectating. You mean to tell me that an NFL quarterback should be making the same amount as a quarterback for some professional women's football team that probably nobody has ever heard of? Either the NFL QB is taking a serious paycut, or the government is going to have to print a ton of extra money, because ain't nobody going to be able to pay the woman QB anywhere near the amount the NFL QB is being paid. This is a matter of supply and demand. Not male vs female.

Do I acknowledge the fact that until recent history, females were oppressed within their societies and not given the same rights as men? Yes I do. Fortunately, we have laws now (at least in America) that give women equal rights and equal opportunity as males. While men have arguably gotten a head start, this is simply a case that not every single statistic you hear has to be 100% equal between males and females. If we were 100% equal, we wouldn't survive. Men possess character traits and qualities that women need, and women possess the same that men cannot sustain without.


Case. Closed.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: 07 Jul 2013, 17:30
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby DBSeeker » 29 Jul 2016, 22:37

This is the smartest post I have seen posted on these boards.

100% agree. If you disagree, I think you hate men.

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 29 Jul 2016, 23:02

Basically, women are arguing they need SPECIAL rights in order to make up this arbitrarily assigned "statistic." So, women and men aren't equal after all? :shock:

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 29 Jul 2016, 23:03

Also, as a man, if I were to transpose this into an argument from my aspect, I would argue that it is unfair that women live longer lives than men. Therefore, men should be given extra healthcare benefits and services so that we can maintain life for those extra few years so that we could be equal.

Sound crazy to you? I thought it might.

limp
Posts: 188
Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 01:59
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby limp » 29 Jul 2016, 23:12

tl; dr

wwo
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Dec 2012, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby wwo » 30 Jul 2016, 00:04

limp wrote:tl; dr


feminism = men are assholes for using logic

User avatar
Zak
Posts: 984
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 01:26
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Zak » 30 Jul 2016, 04:23

Yeah females suck

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 30 Jul 2016, 11:53

wwo wrote:
limp wrote:tl; dr


feminism = men are assholes for using logic


I like this. I shall use this in future arguments.

Revan
Posts: 94
Joined: 04 Aug 2014, 16:10
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Revan » 30 Jul 2016, 16:53

100% Agree.

Most of the jobs being refereed as non-equal pay are jobs where generally a man will do better at, like Entertainment, Labor, or Office work.

An actor is paid by how much studios think they are worth and so many other factors

Labor, c'mon Men are just better. One of my first jobs was a lot of labor and just as kirk said; all the guys were doing it and the gals had all the counter jobs with the chairs

Office is up to so many factors it not even funny but it mostly boils down to the same principles as entertainments.

If woman and men were paid equal, they'd make the same minimum wage.. OH WAIT THEY DO!?

Everyone wants to be equal until they want special treatment.

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 31 Jul 2016, 23:49

Everyone wants to be equal otherwise those "losing" think sexism is to blame. So clearly men need to be paid LESS than women performing equal jobs regardless of tenure, experience, or skillset. That is the ONLY way the pay gap would be 'EVEN.' Now tell me how that ISN'T sexist?

WOMEN LIVE LONGER THAN MEN!

MEN NEED BETTER HEALTHCARE. MEN FACE A GLASS CEILING BECAUSE SOCIETY THINKS WE ARE TOO TOUGH AND CAN HANDLE OURSELVES. THIS SEXIST VIEWPOINT IS HATRED TOWARDS MEN AND WOMEN PREFER MEN TO DIE EARLY SO THEY CAN COLLECT THEIR INHERITANCE OBVIOUSLY.

--Said no man, ever.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 08 Aug 2016, 12:55

even president obama has repeated the 77 cents figure in his state of the union speech just 2 years ago in 2014.

the myth of the wage gap has been debunked ad nauseam, and yet it will not die. why is this?

because it serves the corporatist, marxist agenda of the ruling elite. it is simply propaganda. they need women to believe they are victims so they will vote left to correct a problem that doesn't exist.

similar to practically every other claim of the modern left, it need not be true in order to be useful fodder for their divide and conquer agenda. modern feminists are useful idiots who have been tricked into a series of terrible life decisions that benefit a small (and ironically, mostly male) elite, at enormous personal cost to the feminists.

it is literally tragic how much suffering this stuff is causing, and all completely unnecessary.

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 08 Aug 2016, 23:27

I like how Melekor doesn't bat an eye about saying the term marxist corporatist ruling elite in one sentence.

Pro-tip: the ruling elite aren't marxists.

sasper
Posts: 235
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 19:40
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby sasper » 09 Aug 2016, 01:09

kroks post was told; but i licked my girlfriends arsehole yesterday, it tastes like shit

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 09 Aug 2016, 06:37

switch wrote:I like how Melekor doesn't bat an eye about saying the term marxist corporatist ruling elite in one sentence.

Pro-tip: the ruling elite aren't marxists.


you're probably thinking of classical marxists a-la 1900s russia.

i'm talking about marxists as they exist today. they call themselves "progressives"

classical marxism seeks to divide and conquer capital vs labour. this school was thoroughly discredited with the fall of the soviet union.

modern neo-marxists are much more flexible in how they divide and conquer. they create a fluid hierarchy of so-called "privileged" and "oppressed" groups which change as needed to fit their agenda.

marxists of all stripes are at the core, economic parasites. they seek to gain power and control to redistribute resources to themselves, rather than seeking to create value in a voluntary free market.

the term marxist corporatist is not a contradiction at all. corporations are sociopathic entities that seek maximum profits in the short term. in recent decades, global labour cost arbitrage has been the prime source of short term profits, so marxists intent to destroy traditional nations have been a natural ally for corporations.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 09 Aug 2016, 12:02

the corporatist, ruling elite are progressives? riiiiight..... Who could possibly not be awestruck at how progressive the billionaire class is? Or how much actual ruling power the occupy wall-street protesters had?

Sounds like a classic case of some fox news brainwashing hard at work right there. Any centrist, or even those not as far-right, are actually the far left progressives.

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 09 Aug 2016, 13:14

Melekor wrote:even president obama has repeated the 77 cents figure in his state of the union speech just 2 years ago in 2014.

the myth of the wage gap has been debunked ad nauseam, and yet it will not die. why is this?

because it serves the corporatist, marxist agenda of the ruling elite. it is simply propaganda. they need women to believe they are victims so they will vote left to correct a problem that doesn't exist.

similar to practically every other claim of the modern left, it need not be true in order to be useful fodder for their divide and conquer agenda. modern feminists are useful idiots who have been tricked into a series of terrible life decisions that benefit a small (and ironically, mostly male) elite, at enormous personal cost to the feminists.

it is literally tragic how much suffering this stuff is causing, and all completely unnecessary.


Love this argument against feminazis.

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 09 Aug 2016, 13:32

Melekor wrote:
switch wrote:I like how Melekor doesn't bat an eye about saying the term marxist corporatist ruling elite in one sentence.

Pro-tip: the ruling elite aren't marxists.


you're probably thinking of classical marxists a-la 1900s russia.

i'm talking about marxists as they exist today. they call themselves "progressives"

classical marxism seeks to divide and conquer capital vs labour. this school was thoroughly discredited with the fall of the soviet union.

modern neo-marxists are much more flexible in how they divide and conquer. they create a fluid hierarchy of so-called "privileged" and "oppressed" groups which change as needed to fit their agenda.

marxists of all stripes are at the core, economic parasites. they seek to gain power and control to redistribute resources to themselves, rather than seeking to create value in a voluntary free market.

the term marxist corporatist is not a contradiction at all. corporations are sociopathic entities that seek maximum profits in the short term. in recent decades, global labour cost arbitrage has been the prime source of short term profits, so marxists intent to destroy traditional nations have been a natural ally for corporations.



Hence at their convention, they used gay people, trannies, and also mothers of criminals slain by police to capture the respect of the 'oppressed' groups. Basically some groups are created out of thin air.

Liberals are so contradictory in all that they stand for. They hate cops. They hate guns. They 'claim' to be supportive of 'human rights.' These same people think only cops should have guns and all Americans should be disarmed.

They are against the killing of animals for virtually any reason whatsoever. They are addicted to killing unborn babies though and say they have no human rights until after they are born.

They support "human rights" but support a government agenda that aims to increase the size and impact of the government, including sanctions on large corporations to follow certain guidelines to constrain free enterprise. (The auto industry, the wireless technology industry, banking industry) to name a few.

Me personally, I'm conservative. I do not think there is never a case where a fetus should be aborted. But it shouldn't be used as a means for people to get out of making terrible mistakes. I do not believe in any religion. Marriage should be between a man and woman only. These are the only 2 sexes people can be, period. If their preference is different from what the churches have defined (because that is where marriages' originate from), then too fucking bad. Be gay on your own terms, but creating excuses and getting special rights handed to you is bullshit. Don't get me started on the transgender crowd aka the mental illness crowd.

Being homosexual is more abnormal than pedophilia. Are we now saying that pedophiles should be given special rights to marry underage kids? Oh, you think its disgusting? Well if we didn't have an ARBITRARY age limit defining how old people should be in order to give legal consent, nobody would think pedophilia was disgusting. We used to NOT have laws saying gays could get married, and therefore the vast majority thought this was also a disgusting concept. There is nothing intrinsic about 2 same sexes being attracted to each other. You cannot reproduce this way. Therefore you cannot sustain life this way. Are people born predisposed to this? Probably some factors go into it. But if you are born with an abnormality, you don't deserve special rights. Being attracted to teenage boys and girls is completely natural. If our laws weren't there, then nobody would think this was abnormal at all, simply because our human nature knows exactly when someone is old enough to reproduce, which is several years before the arbitrary 'age of consent.'

People born with a mental handicap don't go around saying they need special rights to marry other people who are mentally handicapped. If both parties are male and female, then they can do so. In order to have an orderly society, you need laws. The laws defined marriage between men and women, period. Not everyone will win in a society that has law and order and has intentions of sustaining centuries of success. That is why the Roman empire fell. They allowed too many immigrants, basically let people do whatever they want, and got complacent on everything. You can see it happening in our country. We need to restore law and order. Police should be given the right to shoot criminals if the criminal killed a police officer.

In the past 8 years, we went from a unified country to a country in disarray where normal people are oppressed and freaks are now considered the special rights people. Normal people don't have a voice. People who have been 'victimized' in some form or another now have more merit than people who have built and sustained this country for nearly 250 years.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 09 Aug 2016, 14:46

Giant Killer General wrote:the corporatist, ruling elite are progressives? riiiiight..... Who could possibly not be awestruck at how progressive the billionaire class is? Or how much actual ruling power the occupy wall-street protesters had?

Sounds like a classic case of some fox news brainwashing hard at work right there. Any centrist, or even those not as far-right, are actually the far left progressives.


yeah GKG, I'm just a brainwashed fox news drone. what a great counterargument, I will have to remember that one.

really, you haven't been looking at these issues very closely if you haven't noticed that billionaires overwhelmingly align with marxists on certain policy goals.

practically all billionaires are fully on board with open borders, mass immigration, mass amnesty, more women and "diversity" in the workforce, and anything else that provides them with more cheaper labour ad more consumers for their corporations.

different motivations, same policies. convenient allies.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 09 Aug 2016, 16:17

Let's stick to the modern use of the term progressive since you already acknowledged that there is some various intended meanings behind the term marxism (which is more confusing) and you apparently meant it in the same way as to mean progressive.

okay so open border, mass immigration, and mass amnesty is 3 different details all under a the same umbrella issue of immigration. Okay so great, you named 1 issue of immigration that apparently aligns with what is progressive. Cheaper labor for them, great, makes sense. Different motivations behind that of course as you acknowledged. We are on the same page on that one.

But then there is still the problem of all the pro-wall street stances that the ruling elite would of course have to get more money (which I believe you agree is their primary motive), which are entirely anti-progressive. I think I might weigh that issue alone way more than immigration, since clearly they can leech more money from the system from de-regulation or other pro-wall street policies than they can from cheap labor, which is only useful for a few select industries (and banking isn't one of them).

But if that is not enough, then there is also the several other big problems with all the various industrial complexes:
-The military industrial complex is financially incentivized to want more wars. That's pretty anti-progressive.
-The health insurance industry / big pharma is financially motivated to avoid any kind of health care reform. That's pretty anti-progressive.
-And the real corporate ruling elite are of course financially motivated to keep (or even expand) money in politics, and lobbying as much as possible to maintain their influence over the political systems. That's super anti-progressive.

I am not even sure what the issue is about women and diversity in the workforce that you are bringing up is supposed to mean. Slightly cheaper labor sometimes I guess just because women work? But women have to work and earn a living too so what else are we supposed to be doing on that? What is the correct, anti-progressive stance on that? Not allow women to work? Sounds great. Let's go ahead and cut our workforce in half just so the labor won't be as cheap for those damn corporations. That sounds like that would work great for the economy. I am sure the history of impoverished nations coming out of poverty will also show how well that works too.

Or maybe let's use a different standard to restrict the workforce so so those damn corporations don't get the cheaper labor. Let's not allow anyone under 5 foot 9 inches tall to work. Or maybe anyone with blue eyes. Then we can call any pro-tall, pro-blue eyed reform that would allow them to work like everyone else again as the progressive, pro-corporatist agenda. Makes sense.

Okay so you say that the billionaires overwhelmingly align with marxists (i.e. progressives) on certain policy goals. But you really only got 1 issue of immigration that happens to align with progressives, while 4 even bigger issues are clearly anti-progressive. And I could go on, but those are just 4 quick easy ones off the top of my head. What other issues are there that they align with, because that doesn't sound like overwhelming alignment to me.

Is that the standard needed to call the corporatist, ruling elite as progressive? More differences than similarities, but we should just grab for any similarity we can find and label them as the same thing? By that logic we should be calling the corporatist ruling elite as conservatives well before we can call them progressive. At least some conservatives are also for immigration reform as well, and they sure as hell align with all of the other anti-progressive stances I just mentioned. They fit the pro-corporatist agenda of the ruling elite much better I think.

To be clear, I have no issue with being against the corporate ruling elite. I don't even have an issue with being anti-progressive (though I would probably disagree, I don't care to argue it). But to call them one in the same, makes absolutely no sense. What other issues do they align on other than immigration? And how do you explain all these way bigger issues where they are diametrically opposed against each other?

shadow
Posts: 523
Joined: 20 Feb 2013, 09:51
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby shadow » 09 Aug 2016, 16:28

Well at the end of the day, we all fucked.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 09 Aug 2016, 22:37

1. I did not say they are one in the same
2. immigration is by far the biggest issue, nothing else even comes close
3. all the issues you mentioned are neither progressive nor anti-progressive, they are simply examples of powerful special interests. conservatives are just as opposed to this stuff as anyone else.

I disagree on calling marxists progressives, they call themselves that to hide, since marxist is now pejorative for good reason... to me progressive is a broader, semi-overlapping category. neo-marxism is about identity poltics and intentional destruction of western civilization, progressivism is more the general idea that goverment can effect positive changes through regulation and wealth redistribution.

clarifying on why corporatists and marxists agree on more than 1 issue...

it is basically about culture, social norms, how families are formed and run, how society is organized.

think about it:
gender roles / family structure
immigration
nationalism vs globalism
protectionism vs free trade
welfare state vs personal responsibility
church vs state
spirituality vs consumerism

in every case, marxists and big corporations are on the same side. they both benefit from weakened nations, weakened traditions and atomized individuals who are easily distracted and programmed, unable to resist their pushes for more power, more foreigners being imported and more parasitical rent seeking, corruption, regulatory capture, wealth redistribution.

the thing about women in the workforce is a huge one. femenists tricked women into disbanding the most effective labour union ever created. because being a corporate drone and competing with men to climb the ladder is supposedly more fulfilling than raising the next generation. once enough women followed this advice, many more were forced to because wages had fallen enough that a single income could no longer meet expectations on the standard of living

some studies show that adjusted for inflation, the average two-income family in the US in 2000s actually had less discretionary income than average single-income family in the 1970s. this is insanity, and you can thank feminism, immigration and globalization. but corporate profits are up, tax revenue is up and GDP is up.

marxists love women in the workforce maybe even more than corporations, because it reduces marriage rates, working towards their divide and conquer goals (single women vote left, married women vote right). it also reduces fertility rates, thus justifying importing more foreigners. it also means children spending less time with their parents, and more time being indoctrinated by tv and government schools. it also means that female labour can now be taxed and redistributed to enlarge government and buy more votes. absolutely massive win for marxists.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 09 Aug 2016, 23:46

Melekor wrote:1. I did not say they are one in the same


Okay, well you said:
Melekor wrote:billionaires overwhelmingly align with marxists on certain policy goals.


So, pretty close. Moot point in any case. You are suggesting they are very similar, when I clearly just pointed out some massive differences.

Melekor wrote:2. immigration is by far the biggest issue, nothing else even comes close


well, that's kind of like, your opinion. everyone has their own biggest issue. if you live near the border, it would make sense that it is very important. If you live anywhere else, it probably isn't so much.

Melekor wrote:3. all the issues you mentioned are neither progressive nor anti-progressive, they are simply examples of powerful special interests. conservatives are just as opposed to this stuff as anyone else.


well this is a convenient dodge for your poor argument. You then either do not understand what progressivism is as it obviously does have very clear positions on these issues, or you are using some other meaning for the term. So basically you concede here that you have no explanation for how progressives (or marxists, whatever the hell you want to call them) are so fundamentally opposed to corporate power in almost every way. Like I said, I could just as easily (and more convincingly, I might add) call the pro-corporatist, ruling elite as all conservatives.

Melekor wrote:in every case, marxists and big corporations are on the same side.


Actually all you did was list a bunch of stuff without any actual detail or explanation, and then made this blanket statement. You just assumed that I or anyone else would be able to obviously connect the dots for you, but clearly your position is not so simple or obvious.

Melekor wrote:femenists tricked women into disbanding the most effective labour union ever created.


And which union would that be? Just to be clear, it is your position that women should not have working careers just like men do, correct? You believe in traditional gender roles where women only raise their families?

Of course what about women that don't want to have families? Or women that want to have a career? Talk about huge infringements on personal liberty, personal liberties that someone like you might try to pretend to claim that you are promoting. Let's just go ahead and make massive life decisions for people for them.

There is a place left in the world that aligns far more closely to your ideology of leaving women without careers at home. It's called the middle east. Maybe you should look into moving there sometime. Maybe some Sharia Law wouldn't be a bad thing for you.

Melekor wrote:once enough women followed this advice, many more were forced to because wages had fallen enough that a single income could no longer meet expectations on the standard of living

some studies show that adjusted for inflation, the average two-income family in the US in 2000s actually had less discretionary income than average single-income family in the 1970s. this is insanity, and you can thank feminism, immigration and globalization. but corporate profits are up, tax revenue is up and GDP is up.


So you just took a truth about the shrinking middle class, and appended your own set of labels to it to ensure that it reinforces your prior worldview. Again, no specifics, explanation, or rationale behind it, just blanket statements. You hope to dodge the intellectual void by leaving it up to the reader to connect the non-existent dots. If the truth was on your side, then you would just be able to explain it quite easily in a way that makes sense.

You sound like you were born about 80 years too late. You would have been just fine in the 1950's. Not to mention how anyone can explain how the progressive civil rights movement was pro-corporatist in the segregation era either. Wouldn't the corporations have just preferred segregation (or even go back to slavery) to preserve the cheap labor? 0 sense.

So marxism, perhaps the most anti-corporate ideology possible, is actually pro-corporate. How classic. Good luck explaining that one to anyone.

You're entire shtick here appears to be to just take anyone on the political left and broadly label them with the craziest sounding term to discredit your entire political opposition in one stroke. A year ago the label might have been socialist, but now that has become more acceptable, so now we are going with marxist. Mix in some gobbledygook and some blanket statements without any depth and hope it sticks. Ignore the fact that most people you are describing as marxist probably don't even know what the term means.

Hey look, I can just as easily do the same thing you are doing. I'll just start calling the entire right-wing fascists. I can probably also come up with a more believable fake explanation in a feeble attempt to back it up (trump does seem to fit the bill far more closely).

I probably had it wrong earlier. Maybe not fox news brainwashing. Men's rights movement brainwashing, along with a hint of "new world order" conspiracy theory vibe to it. Too much Stefan Molyneux maybe. Yes the marxists are all organized in secret underground societies, in bed with the billionaires to collapse western civilization. Go ahead and run with that idea. See how far it takes you.

dac
Posts: 593
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 02:40
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby dac » 10 Aug 2016, 00:31

corporate interests support all political parties so that they arent culled the second said party gets into power.

do you really think billionaires want their wealth taxed into the ground and redistributed to buy votes and enable people to sit on their asses at home?

maybe a few. you have to grease the wheels with all parties involved to cover your ass. the return on investment for paying off a politician is insane, and since the masses can now vote private fortunes into their own coffers, buying politicians is the only recourse the wealthy have to protect themselves.

and to accuse brainwashing is a pretty weak ad hom. not that melekor doesnt deserve to be called a fucktard for a variety of reasons, but you're better than resorting to a weak adhom gkg. dont go cenk on us, his populist pleas and incessant adhoms when he's stumped is nauseating.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 10 Aug 2016, 00:39

maybe dac. but maybe it's not ad hom, I certainly don't intend it to be. I am just trying to get him to open his eyes and think for himself. it sounds way too much like he was fed it by someone somewhere, because there's 0 reasoning or specifics behind it. just blanket statements and carelessly throwing around terms, as if repeating the labels will eventually make it true. Whatever he is listening to he probably should broaden his horizons a bit more, add a bit more variety, even with some perspectives he might not agree with.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 10 Aug 2016, 16:21

GKG you are totally twisting what I've written, I've not claimed that neo-marxism is ideologically pro-corporate, nor am I agreeing with the way you are replacing every occurrence of the word marxist with progressive.

you are basically trying to create a strawman of my argument where I've made an idiotic and indefensible claim that bernie sanders people are pro-corporate. well okay, I never said that!

what I've said is corporations align with neo-marxist policy goals because it allows them to reap short term profits

what I've said is that the ruling elite pursue a marxist, corporatist agenda. it's marxist because it achieves marxist goals and it's corporatist because it is profitable to big corporations.

that doesn't mean that CEOs are conspiring in smokey back rooms or even know what marxism is, it's just a description of what is happening in our societies.

I think you are just having a problem with the word marxist. you don't really know what it's about and you feel like it reeks of conspiracy theories.

look into the the frankfurt school and critical theory. this is the intellectual horsepower behind political correctness, identity politics, sexual liberation, feminism among other things. look into how the left has purged almost all conservative thought from humanities and social sciences in academia.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 10 Aug 2016, 16:32

Giant Killer General wrote:Just to be clear, it is your position that women should not have working careers just like men do, correct? You believe in traditional gender roles where women only raise their families?

Of course what about women that don't want to have families? Or women that want to have a career? Talk about huge infringements on personal liberty, personal liberties that someone like you might try to pretend to claim that you are promoting. Let's just go ahead and make massive life decisions for people for them.

There is a place left in the world that aligns far more closely to your ideology of leaving women without careers at home. It's called the middle east. Maybe you should look into moving there sometime. Maybe some Sharia Law wouldn't be a bad thing for you.



In the west, women have historically been able to work if they wanted to. the difference is now most of them are forced to.

my main problem with feminism is that everywhere it is implemented, the society enters demographic decline and is eventually conquered by more fertile foreigners. this is what is happening to the west presently.

funny you mention Sharia Law, because that's what we'll be living under (well, at least in europe) if the demographic decline isn't halted

User avatar
Zak
Posts: 984
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 01:26
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Zak » 10 Aug 2016, 16:47

If i could upvote melekor i would.


Punkuser can we make him an endorsed contributor?

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 10 Aug 2016, 16:57

so the agendas of big-pharma, the military industrial complex, health insurance industry, and money in politics, are also neo-marxist policy goals. makes sense (not).

you have 0 depth in any of your explanations, you are just drawing whatever connections you can that fit your worldview (a clear case of confirmation bias), without actually defending any of them in any level of detail.

I question if indeed anyone can understand what on earth you are trying to say. Who knew the truth could be so convoluted to explain. I think I will stick with what Einstein said, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

i am not getting into the argument of conservative vs progressive thought here, because that opens a whole other big bag of worms, and clearly we cant even clarify what connections you are attempting to draw here with just your use of a couple simple terms. Plus I already broke my own cardinal rule of not getting involved in political discussions on the myth forums.

Melekor wrote:I think you are just having a problem with the word marxist. you don't really know what it's about


I could say the same thing for you.

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 10 Aug 2016, 17:18

Melkor ~ the Jewish globalist new world order cultural Marxist illuminati who control the Frankfurt school are trying to eradicate the white race! Only TRUMP can squash the feminazi new male cuckolds and save the white women from BBC mulatto babies!

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 10 Aug 2016, 20:41

switch wrote:Melkor ~ the Jewish globalist new world order cultural Marxist illuminati who control the Frankfurt school are trying to eradicate the white race! Only TRUMP can squash the feminazi new male cuckolds and save the white women from BBC mulatto babies!


perhaps the funniest thing I have ever seen switch write.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 11 Aug 2016, 04:28

GKG you're being incredibly obtuse, in every post I've tried to clarify to you that you're arguing a strawman

all I ever said was the ruling elites agenda is corporatist and marxist

that's it. it's not a deep theory. it's not hard to understand. have you ever seen a venn diagram before? the part in the middle is A and B.

it's like if I said my dog is black and white and you went on for 5 posts about how it's impossible for black to be the same thing as white. you're still doing it in your latest post too.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 11 Aug 2016, 04:31

switch wrote:Melkor ~ the Jewish globalist new world order cultural Marxist illuminati who control the Frankfurt school are trying to eradicate the white race! Only TRUMP can squash the feminazi new male cuckolds and save the white women from BBC mulatto babies!


Switch ~ Stay bluepilled my friend.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Giant Killer General » 11 Aug 2016, 05:33

everytime I think I am making sense of what you are trying to say, your only response is "that is not what I meant, you're using a strawman" before then attempting to say something partially different and partially the same again. Then I think I make sense of it again, and get the same response. This is now the 3rd iteration of this loop we are going circles in. all I did was ask for a simple explanation which you were apparently incapable of ever giving.

you are sitting here thinking its only me that is just not understanding you, but really nobody understands you. I've asked 2 other people to help make sense of your gobbledygook, and nobody can understand it. so don't blame me, blame either your poor nonsensical ideas, or your poor communication of said ideas.

and as i said before, even with attempting to use your flawed logic in comparing 2 largely unrelated things, the ruling elite / corporatist agenda is still far more conservative than it is marxist (hint: bankers and business owners tend to be republican). so let's hear you talk about that. but oh wait, you are blind to anything that doesn't fit your worldview.

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 11 Aug 2016, 05:54

The worst part about 2 penny cranks is that they will never explain their conspiracies. The conspiracy is so elaborate that the theorist cannot fully appreciate it, let alone explain it succinctly.

Actually attempting to do so invariably exposes the mental gymnastics of the theorist, not to mention their generally appallingly poor understanding of history and international politics. Any possibly questionable sources upon which the theorist has constructed his conspiracy are best not revealed since they would out the conspirator as a regular viewer of other cranks.

Further, the conspiracy is only really appealing so long as it holds a mystique of "in" and "out" groups of which the former, of course, the theorist considers himself the chief.


sasper
Posts: 235
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 19:40
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby sasper » 11 Aug 2016, 14:59

the pay gap between men and women is almost entirely explained by non discriminatory factors. the obvious one is the fact that statistically women take time out of their careers to have kids, and fall behind the curve. 100% choice 0% discrimination.

sasper
Posts: 235
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 19:40
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby sasper » 11 Aug 2016, 15:13

i have to admit i developed a pretty fucking expensive hooker habit for a couple of years while i was between girlfriends. a decent hooker runs you about $1000/hr and an hour really means about 10 mins since they always show up late, leave early, waste as much time as possible with small talk bs, insist on showering both before and after sex, after all that shit is out of the way you only get to fuck them for about 10 mins, so really its about $6000/hr. these fuckwitted feminist assfucks pretending women have it hard piss me off

shadow
Posts: 523
Joined: 20 Feb 2013, 09:51
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby shadow » 11 Aug 2016, 15:52

sasper wrote:$1000/hr


Are u kidding ? You must ugliest, dumbest, trash in the world.
Impossible price.

sasper
Posts: 235
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 19:40
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby sasper » 11 Aug 2016, 15:57

shadow wrote:
sasper wrote:$1000/hr


Are u kidding ? You must ugliest, dumbest, trash in the world.
Impossible price.


sorry bags, i know you live in the 3rd world (russia) but i come from the 1st world (australia) and expect the finer things in life, hence i can afford better than your $2 sucky sucky street whores

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 11 Aug 2016, 16:17

Giant Killer General wrote:everytime I think I am making sense of what you are trying to say, your only response is "that is not what I meant, you're using a strawman" before then attempting to say something partially different and partially the same again. Then I think I make sense of it again, and get the same response. This is now the 3rd iteration of this loop we are going circles in. all I did was ask for a simple explanation which you were apparently incapable of ever giving.


I actually went back and reread your posts trying to find this simple explanation you said you've been asking for, and I'm not sure what it is.

Is it the part where you were asking me why military industrial complex, money in politics and big pharma are actually loved by progressives/marxists/etc? If so, the answer is (yet again for the Nth time) that I never claimed they are.

and as i said before, even with attempting to use your flawed logic in comparing 2 largely unrelated things, the ruling elite / corporatist agenda is still far more conservative than it is marxist (hint: bankers and business owners tend to be republican). so let's hear you talk about that. but oh wait, you are blind to anything that doesn't fit your worldview.


To argue that "corporatist/conservative" is a more accurate description of the elites than "corporatist/marxist", you'll have to argue that they push more policies which are primarily conservative but not corporatist than they do policies which are primarily marxist but not corporatist (EDIT: and I want to note that this is not just about government policies, it is about cultural norms as well, since much of culture is generated by the elites)

I think this is a really hard argument to make. The conservative agenda has been suffering defeat after defeat for decades, while corporatists and marxists have been winning, barring a few minor setbacks. Conservatives only have their way in a few major areas like free speech and 2nd ammendment rights, and these things are increasingly under attack by marxists.

shadow
Posts: 523
Joined: 20 Feb 2013, 09:51
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby shadow » 11 Aug 2016, 17:57

sasper wrote:
shadow wrote:
sasper wrote:$1000/hr


Are u kidding ? You must ugliest, dumbest, trash in the world.
Impossible price.


sorry bags, i know you live in the 3rd world (russia) but i come from the 1st world (australia) and expect the finer things in life, hence i can afford better than your $2 sucky sucky street whores


Fat lier

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 11 Aug 2016, 18:20

Melekor ~ I un-ironically understand the entire world as a conservative - marxist dichotomy

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 11 Aug 2016, 21:04

I would have assumed Melekor to be an extreme leftist asshat like a lot of the other idiots in this community. But he has great arguments. I think the emphasis on comparing present day to marxism is a bit overskewed, but there is no denying that we are well on our way to a socialist country.

1. The middle and lower class need tax breaks.
2. The wall will never get approved to be built (though I wish it would). But we can spend more on border patrol and homeland security.
3. Decrease welfare benefits. You must also be screened for drug testing. Hillary says it would cost too much money, when really she means it would cost her too many votes. If you are collecting welfare, you should be required X amount of hours per week to volunteer/work. Jobs like litter pick up, cleaning, volunteering in the community, etc.
4. Increase focus on public and private education. Do I think colleges are overpriced and flawed? Yes. But there are MANY other means to obtain job skills and an education. College is 100% voluntary. And most jobs don't even require a degree because they are going to train you their ways anyway. Though having a degree DOES set you apart from another person. I think individuals should be able to pick more of their own classes, or simply adhere to a stricter regimen of classes regarding actual useful topics. I double majored in Business Administration and Psychology. I had to take classes like music, art, theater, all of which don't mean shit to my degree nor have I ever used them in my career. English, math, science, history, and financial classes should be taught to EVERYONE. Public education should be more structured in the same way, and teach kids more useful skills for career-placement and not have to rely so much on just getting into college. Eliminate the liberal bias in public schools too... basically everything michelle obama has done. Kids should be taught financial basics, basics of politics, human resources, and business classes in high school. Yes, high school. Because a lot of kids either cannot afford to go to college, or don't want to. At least give them some semblance of ideas of what its like to have a real job and not just work in fast food and be a piece of shit.
5. Country-wide gun laws. To hell with the state-by-state laws we currently have. I should be able to concealed carry in all 50 states as protected by the 2nd Amendment. Teach kids in school the safety of firearms instead of teaching them how to duck and cover in an 'active shooter' situation, and trying to convince them that all guns are bad. Offer incentives like discounts on health insurance if you have been certified in a firearms safety course.
6. Require a permit to have kids. This one is pretty crazy to think about. But in perspective; think about all the permits and things you must obtain to do things today. You need a license to drive a vehicle, get married, hunt, fish, etc. Hell I even need a permit to spray algae-killer in my own fucking pond because it is linked with a nature preserve reservoir. Why don't we require people to obtain a permit to bring a life into this world? Parents should have to complete a training course, or pay a fine if they have a child and did not attend parenting classes. If a mother gives birth without a license, then they should also have to pay a hefty fine. Charge a hefty fine for abortion as well. This would really help population control and teach people smarter birthing. Otherwise we'll continue to have Big Bertha give birth to 8 kids while living on welfare in the projects and driving an Escalade with 22's and she doesn't have to work.

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 11 Aug 2016, 21:05

Going back to my original post that started this thread, does anyone disagree with that?

User avatar
Zak
Posts: 984
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 01:26
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Zak » 11 Aug 2016, 21:33

Krok dropping truth bombs on this thread, suck it you progressive jihadists

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 11 Aug 2016, 21:49

Kirk ~ taxes, BUILD WALL, war on drugs, welfare queens, EXPAND federal powers over states, GUNS, federally control birthrate.

Melekor
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 00:34
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby Melekor » 12 Aug 2016, 00:34

switch wrote:Melekor ~ I un-ironically understand the entire world as a conservative - marxist dichotomy

BIG KROK V8 SS wrote: I think the emphasis on comparing present day to marxism is a bit overskewed, but there is no denying that we are well on our way to a socialist country.


ha. it just sounds like that because I had to constantly reiterate my real position for GKG. I'm not that obsessed with marxism, really.. :)

User avatar
BIG KROK V8 SS
Posts: 1635
Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 04:29
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby BIG KROK V8 SS » 12 Aug 2016, 01:55

The vast majority of military members and the police force vote Conservative (probably 90% if not more). ALL of the people living in section 8 housing popping out 17 kids, and mentally ill people confused about their genders vote for libtards.

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby switch » 12 Aug 2016, 03:09

That's not true, Kirk. While career officers do tend to vote Republican (more funding, more opportunities for career advancement), however, enlisted are more likely to vote Democrat. In 2012, serving military personal donated vastly more money to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign. Furthermore, you can easily find a number of democrat and republican, veterans, in say, the US congress. Of course, there are other trends, for example, US Navy SEALS tend to be Republicans. On the other hand, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford USMC, recently encouraged servicemen and women to stay out of politics to preserve their legitimacy and impartiality. What, exactly, is your point?

It's no secret that Republicans have made an ideological and political issue out of welfare exploitation and transgender. Why is this issue so disproportionately obsessive to the Republican ideologues?

wwo
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Dec 2012, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Debate thread

Postby wwo » 12 Aug 2016, 03:18

As one of the ruling elite, I like it when the people who could topple me fight amongst themselves for the scraps I allow them to have.


Return to “Eblis Stone”