agsdfgsd

7 ms·

1.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>that the presence of hate-spewing and minority-oppressing fascists is not wanted. But the bulk of the people being targeted are none of those things. What the average person is seeing is that anyone who dares to state a fact that far l
2.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>We must not tolerate intolerance, because that kills tolerance overall. I see people repeat that, but I don't see anything to indicate it is true. Quite the contrary, it would appear that one of the main factors in the growing whi
3.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
The myth is that 90% were involved in food production in any way. Butchers and millers and brewers and bakers are part of that 90%, they were not doing anything in any fields. But that myth is based on England under Roman rule, where vast
4.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more efficiently spread their ideology and organize. But again, that's not authoritarianism. Quite the contrary, the left demanding that people like him not be
5.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>I mean Hitler's economy was a conquest dependent mess No it wasn't. The economic recovery occurred way before the war did.
6.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then say "see, nobody has found any holes!".
7.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
I love how in modern discourse, nazi apologists predate nazis.
8.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
No they didn't. We have books on farming that are 2000 years old, people have read them even. Just because movies show dirty peasants hoeing fields doesn't mean that was reality.
9.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The evidence of harm is far from conclusive, and given the replication crisis, your stating these claims as facts is completely unjustified. Then say "I don't believe that" instead of trying to engage in silly arguments t
10.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Many things didn't exist before the 1900s, that still doesn't entail they are harmful. Stop trying to reverse my statement because you think that will allow you to dismiss it. I said they are harmful, and they did not exist b
11.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
I have not made any extraordinary claims, I have repeated the very standard scientific consensus, which is constantly repeated in the popular media. I do not presume that every piece of common knowledge is going to be considered an "e
12.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The former isn’t true for income Wealth inequality is not about income is it? >doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed? >The latter is of course true
13.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>But they don’t have modern medicine Yes, we've covered that haven't we? In the very post you just replied to, in order to add absolutely nothing to the discussion? >Indigenous tribes who have contact with society are overw
14.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Nobody lives in the Stone Age today. That’s a period of time. Yes they do. It is a period of technological development. There is no singular timespan that makes up the stone age or bronze age or iron age, those periods are different d
15.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
I don't follow. How did that get us "into this mess"? Maybe I am confused about what exactly you consider to be "this mess".
16.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Citation please. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition >Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful. It is not a naturalistic fallacy. The things I mentioned a
17.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
I am not dismissing medicine. But the existence of medicine now does not mean life centuries ago was a horrifying existence struggling to survive as popular culture suggests. There are still primitive people now, whose existence is far cl
18.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast qu
19.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governme
20.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>the idea of people mostly staying put over that time frame is demolished. That idea was never put forward. Again, a nation is a people. >It's about fear, where origin is a proxy. It seems rather arrogant to tell other people wh
21.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>I'm not convinced that people intrinsically "care" about migration Lots of people do. For many people it genuinely is about maintaining the nations their ancestors spent hundreds of generations creating. Nations, not st
22.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Since modern states don't have an entrenched hereditary aristocracy We absolutely do, but because we are bombarded with propaganda telling us they "earned it" by "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by
23.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
No, if you are a functional developer from haskell, you will not be impressed by F#. Why add silly things like this to your sales pitch if F# is your first functional language, and you're still pretty new to it?
24.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>I have evidence Then why not present it? Until you establish it is fact, then yes it is your belief. >You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack. I have no idea what you mean. >The largest
25.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong. Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. The catholic church is not a pro-life group. They pre-date the very idea of a pro-life group by many centuries. The la
26.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>For instance the apparent love of conservatives for 'respect for authority' is not actually respect for authority (why would they be so against big government if that were the case?) Because authority is not the only value the
27.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
I couldn't name a pro-life group period. I know a lot of churches are pro-life, but they are not pro-life groups any more than they are anti-theft groups.
28.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong Yes, it is. >The evidence is that if you look at the big pro-life groups, they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control. That is incorrect, and a good exampl
29.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Actually conservatives and liberals do share a lot of values They share two or three values: care and fairness for sure, and maybe liberty (not necessarily a value held by either group, but one held by some subset of both groups). That
30.
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
Both sides do demonize each other, that's not the question. The question is if they understand each other. Abortion is a perfect example. Conservatives understand the liberal position, that a woman's "right" to an abo

More ›