Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NotEnder

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« on: 6 October 2020, 11:34:16 PM »
Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.

How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.

So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.

Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.

I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article!), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.

Based on the definition of God we put forth earlier, I don't think it's inherently self-contradictory that God can be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time. For what you paraphrased regarding what disqualifies a deity from being considered as having the first three attributes, I agree. It's the omnibenevolence counterpoint you highlighted that I don't know if it can be stated with absolute certainty. Obviously, an impoverished, sick child living in poor conditions sucks. In my personal worldview, the same omnibenevolent deity would have already accounted for this fact by giving said child the appropriate benefits/compensation in an afterlife after they die on Earth. The judgement required to determine what sort of compensation/accountability is fair would presumably be at the same magnitude of ability to be omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent in the first place, and as such we as humans would not be able to properly consider/make a judgement of whether or not each case was fair due to not having the ability to compensate/empathize/impartially judge in the first place. There is practically no way to justify this with scientifically grounded evidence, as such a concept revolves entirely around a realm/place outside of the natural world as we know it and generally believe that the moral arc of the universe is long, but bends towards justice (thanks MLK). What are your general thoughts on the concept of an afterlife/heaven and people believing as such?

Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?

I personally think it's the case simply because, as I mentioned earlier, I find it more plausible that the conditions of our world existing within the universe as we know it and having just the right conditions to sustain life (also as we know it) to have had outside input rather than statistically coming to be through chance (as well as the fact that the universe and/or the initial singularity of the Big Bang [collectively "the natural world"] may have had to have had come into existence somehow rather than simply spawning from utter nothingness). As far as why I think it's a single God and not two or twenty, I simply just think on a fundamental level it's far less problematic. If you were to have two gods, for instance, designing and having input on everything ever created, this would both be self-contradictory as you paraphrased earlier (if they meet the definition of a god, then how come they need to co-create and consider the other's input in the first place?) as well as the fact that it's a lot easier to mull over that causality stems from a sole source rather than multiple sources having to work together in tandem. While I'm still clearly believing the conceptually very-significant-to-consider idea that a God exists, it becomes way easier on a logarithmic-esque scale to rationalize a single God.

Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?

As we both know, there are countless "documented" stories throughout history of people claiming divine intervention has occurred at a specific instance/instances, and given that the vast majority of these stories haven't necessarily been factually verified or had potential alternative causes dissuaded from contention, it's borderline (if not outright) impossible to prove a god intervenes with indisputable "concrete" evidence as you put it. I personally do believe God intervenes in certain situations, whether it's potentially influencing a decision or even real-life deus ex machina scenarios (on a technical level, the term had to originate from somewhere/some belief) in rare instances. Can I point to specific instances being more likely than others? Not really. Do I think it's something to potentially consider if order is to be maintained in the universe? I definitely (from a personal standpoint) think it's possible to consider.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« on: 2 October 2020, 09:35:28 PM »
Sounds great!

I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.

As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.

I appreciate the appreciation. Hindsight is 20/20 and I've gotten much better about recognizing inherent flaws in debates and discussion since then, with my own comments in the past certainly being no exception.

I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.

Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:

"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"

For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.

Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps.

But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."

Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.

You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.

Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.

General Discussion / Re: Introducing Ultimate Hardcore Mode Number 7!
« on: 1 October 2020, 07:41:25 PM »
I will consider it. :)

I've been gone for far too long. Theo had a charming wit and never passed up the opportunity to brighten up someone else's day with some well-placed humor. I will cherish the handful of memories we made during the era of 2015-2016.

Rest in peace man, I hope your close ones have been able to process this in the months that have passed and remember the legacy you left behind.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« on: 1 October 2020, 07:15:46 PM »
@NotEnder Please revive this, I want to see the refreshed matchup of older Ender vs Ako.

Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.

Damn right

However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?

Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.

However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.

For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.

One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.

In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.

With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.

Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?

It's been like what, 2 or 3 years ago at this point? Let's just say I wasn't too much of an experienced debater at that point. It was still fun debating you though, that whole thread taught me a lot about making sure not to create strawman arguments and learning about my own preexisting cognitive biases. Safe to say Ako won that one; although my general religious beliefs remain unchanged, I'd like to consider myself a bit more open-minded and aware of the reasonings behind my beliefs now.

Good to hear this, really. Let me know if you want round 2, it can be better this time.

Appreciate the feedback! I really do, it shows that you're wholeheartedly willing to come to terms that I've accepted the careless mistakes I made and can move beyond that to look at the bigger picture. Not many people are capable of doing that, especially when considering that Canada doesn't exist a lot of people put a ton of attachment on inability to grow from mistakes and persistently connect that to having a flawed personality. Time and effort willing, I'd definitely like to go for a Round 2 at some point in the distant future.

And yeah we can change your forum name if you feel it's worth it

Sweet, I'd love to have it changed to NotEnder

« on: 18 February 2019, 03:12:09 AM »
I like people replying to a lot of threads, it keeps the forums active. Reply to any threads you want.

Expect to see my staff application in 2017.
Maybe 2016 if you good ;)

fucking kek

Nice necro you did there

the 20 page post was funny lol i think its anniversary is coming up

to celebrate, let's make him staff?

@OctoGamer facts
@Akomine nah I'm good lol

It's been like what, 2 or 3 years ago at this point? Let's just say I wasn't too much of an experienced debater at that point. It was still fun debating you though, that whole thread taught me a lot about making sure not to create strawman arguments and learning about my own preexisting cognitive biases. Safe to say Ako won that one; although my general religious beliefs remain unchanged, I'd like to consider myself a bit more open-minded and aware of the reasonings behind my beliefs now.

I still find it interesting that Gerrit literally hasn't changed since we last talked though. lmfao

Other notable/interesting/clarification points while I'm here:
  • I haven't gone by EnderEssence since 2016 but it's not like I can change my VC forum account name anyway
  • If it wasn't for @Scrooge/Scroogles I would have never known about VC, and he's doing very well in North Dakota, thanks for asking
  • As of late I'm pretty sure Octo and I are on decent terms and that the only thing I dislike about him is that he doesn't main Puff in Melee
  • When I stopped being active on VC forum likes had just become a thing
  • Subscribe to PewDiePie


General Discussion / Jetpack Plugin
« on: 7 January 2019, 06:07:45 PM »
As some of you may recall, there used to be a plugin that enabled certain chainmail chestplates to be used as jetpacks.

Even though the plugin has since been broken and elytras have pretty much already taken their place at this point, is there still any plan to make the plugin compatible in the future? It was kinda neat having them as an alternative means of transportation.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: happy holidays
« on: 26 December 2018, 12:23:03 PM »
Happy holidays!
Astroworld is good, but overrated

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Who's still around? / Brief Thank You Post
« on: 22 December 2018, 11:39:26 AM »
i miss islid and cj

Think you said that verbatim when we were online yesterday, lol

No, thank YOU and the rest of the staff team for the effort and time you've put into maintaining such a lax environment to begin with. This server wouldn't have gotten to where it is today if it weren't for some of the dedicated individuals I've ever seen throughout my entire history of playing this game.

Here's to at least a few more years to come.

Off-Topic Discussion / Who's still around? / Brief Thank You Post
« on: 25 November 2018, 01:09:35 AM »
Just wanted to see who's still been around after all this time. Though I'm far from active on VC anymore, it's still nice to see a few familiar faces (@Akomine, @luisc99, @Airbongo, @Lividup64) still alive and well.

With that said, thank you to everyone that made my brief time on VC enjoyable. I know I wasn't the most enjoyable person to interact with back then, and for that I'd like to apologize. I decided to hop on just for the fun of it today, and was genuinely happy to see that Qualia's been updated and that @Katkatdaddy aka destroyer of gardens, @CRH244, and @AtomicDonut still haven't jumped ship. Shame that jetpacks don't work anymore, though.

If you were wondering where I've been nowadays, I'm pretty active within the Mineplex community. I haven't gone back to SMP just yet, but who knows? I might just consider it again in the future. Until then, see you later.

General Discussion / Re: Qualia Metro now open!
« on: 25 November 2018, 12:43:17 AM »
Whoaaa, so cool, I'm gonna go explore it.

That Metro-style map is really nice

Can't help but second this, it's really something @luisc99.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: What I've been up to recently
« on: 24 August 2018, 03:54:53 PM »
This looks pretty neat, let us know if you have any other updates. I haven't really gotten around to looking at 1.13 yet.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: done.
« on: 21 October 2017, 02:28:42 PM »
Wish granted, you've been excluded by way of forum ban.

Damn, why do I always miss out whenever something interesting happens?

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Dank Memes
« on: 7 April 2017, 11:28:08 AM »

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« on: 17 January 2017, 03:33:12 PM »
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?

Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.

This is old af, I think I did happen to ask you a few questions on page 8 or something that you never got around to answering though.

I will admit that I lost this, but I did learn a good deal about debating as a result.

Thanks Ako.

If I never answered something it's because you were being so dishonest that I got frustrated and refused.

I am shocked to see you admit you lost this, and glad. Thanks for admitting that.

What did you learn about debating?

1. Don't get baited into using Russel's Teapot arguments.

2. Don't get yourself into a position in which you inevitably keep making more claims without taking the time to prepare a decent argument with evidence. If there's anything that I learned from this that I'd consider the most important, it's this. Never make claims without evidence.

3. Don't overlook things that can be solved with common sense (i.e: I didn't think the water in living creatures one through).

4. Don't debate Ako, as he will always find holes in your arguments and then proceed to hammer the living damn out of you.

Might update this in the near future as I keep finding so many things I did wrong lmao

General Discussion / Re: 1.11.2 - Have fun!
« on: 15 January 2017, 04:13:47 PM »
I updated it. Sorry it wasn't sooner, but I've been busy over the past few weeks with stuff. Still, 1.11.2 is now running on the server.

In typical "Luis updating things" fashion, something broke. This time, it was rTriggers. Yes, the plugin that never breaks, and works 100% of the time, even when all other plugins broke. But it's fine, I fixed it. The code was a mess, but I managed. That's working again now.

Because I was busy, and because the server is quite complex, I couldn't test everything that could possibly be tested. As a result, I'm expecting there to be some things here and there that I've missed. If you find them, please report them immediately with /bug. This is important, as we don't want a buggy server, and some problems will only be seen in specific scenarios. Try to describe them in as much detail as possible, and with a time+date. That'd be nice. I'm on steam too, if you find a major bug that will cause major issues.

Oh and also, STP is gone. I know you all complained about that.

Have fun on 1.11.2 :D
- Luis

What happens to STPs we currently have? Are they all just named books now?

Thanks Luis.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: she's a beast
« on: 15 January 2017, 04:03:27 PM »
Tf is this

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« on: 15 January 2017, 04:02:47 PM »
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?

Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.

This is old af, I think I did happen to ask you a few questions on page 8 or something that you never got around to answering though.

I will admit that I lost this, but I did learn a good deal about debating as a result.

Thanks Ako.

General Discussion / Re: LIVID NEEDS HELP
« on: 10 January 2017, 01:19:30 PM »
No Ender, Melee is indeed the worst thing you could possibly play on Gamecube.

Screw you, I like Melee unironically.

General Discussion / Re: LIVID NEEDS HELP
« on: 6 January 2017, 12:08:04 PM »
You may already have this, but you could a staff section on the forum which only staff can access. This document could display all the  commands that staff may need to use. This could also be a ingame command.

wait REALLY?

Yes we already have this.

fuck you octo i see what you did and im not  :) in fact im  >:( >:( >:(

I think you've come down with a case of basic

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: why
« on: 26 November 2016, 11:29:58 PM »

Did you all die wtf

I'll be back in a month


Who cares bud, i hppe trump wins so he deports your Muslim turkish ass back to Istanbul.

So speaks the Mexican
You're brown and I'm white bud. I can blend in anywhere with white people, unseen. While you're back there still getting your random security check at the airport, I'm already at the terminal. Lelelrekt
This was very mean Ender and I meant it as a joke, just to make that clear lol.

dun worry it's all good I'm probably whiter than you

who told you to apologize air

who told you to get in the middle of our insightful and thoughtful conversation

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2016 Election
« on: 14 November 2016, 10:52:16 AM »
Guys, essentially what stops third parties from success is the idea that third parties can never achieve success. (Also the systematic slanting in favour of the two major parties).

Of course the idea that a third party can never win just isn't true, and there are examples from within the United States (using a FPTP system) that disprove your logic. Bernie Sanders in Vermont, Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, and a bunch of other examples.

If enough people vote for them, they can win, that's it. Naysaying only holds this goal back. Furthermore, voting for them is worth it because if they achieve just 5% of the vote, they can get public funding. People should not be told to vote strategically at all times, because all it does is uphold the two party system, thus a viscous circle occurs forever. In fact, all it does is make people not vote at all, an apparent result of this election cycle.

Just because the Libertarian Party got more votes than the difference in votes between the Democrats and Republicans in some states DOES NOT make them spoilers. Who's to say they would have been more aligned with Clinton? They were probably more likely to not vote than vote for her. The 1.7% Libertarian voters are not worthy of your shaming. You could maybe make an argument about the 46% or so who didn't vote, but even then, you have to understand why they didn't vote. Choosing between the lesser of two evils when you've having problems determining just who is the lesser of two evils, is causing chronically low voter turnout. If people want to vote for a third party, do not treat them with contempt. Do not call them spoilers. Do not act like it is their fault for not falling in line. If Clinton wanted their votes she should have gone after them.

Obviously FPTP naturally forces a two-party system, and the people of the country ultimately have to change the system, because the two major parties never will. Democracy is not about voting every 4 years and hoping for the best. Democracy is affecting change whenever possible in your life. Taking a stand, standing up for what is right, discussing, arguing, and choosing to do something meaningful to make the future better. Making the world a more democratic place is a core part of that.

I mean, Gary Johnson did praise Clinton.

FPTP is trash and our voting system is highly unlikely to change within our lifetimes, it's been that way since America was founded.

I wonder how different the election's outcome would be if we used STP instead, lmao

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Election 2020
« on: 14 November 2016, 10:46:57 AM »
As one insane election passes by, it is time to look forward to 2020. Who would you like to see? Perhaps an establishment figure like Tim Kaine or a Wall Street Regulation Crusader like Elizabeth Warren. Share your thoughts below.

I want 1.Tim Kaine, 1.2.Joe Biden, 2.Elizabeth Warren, 3.Michelle Obama.

1. like
2. like
3. definitely like, she's probably the best of your given options
4. sadly has no plans to run for any political office despite being well-liked

Tim Kaine? Joe Biden? Michelle Obama? Talk about ensuring the democratic party fades into oblivion. People do not want establishment status-quo figures. Elizabeth Warren is a much better suggestion.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard.

Good points, but despite being establishment figures I'd assume they'd do a much better job of running the country than a billionaire cheeto

I swear I heard somewhere that Joe Biden is some fucking asshole?


Wants to reverse Obama's gaymarriage laws ect. (Ill add more if I find more)


Michelle Obama is nice.

Luckily we get to hear four more years of Michelle Obama speeches thanks to Melania

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2016 Election
« on: 10 November 2016, 08:10:07 AM »
Hillary lost some states by a very small margin, which was often smaller than the number of people voting third party. And look what that achieved.

Well done America. I hope you're proud

Clinton lost because she is a shit corrupt candidate, not because of people voting for third parties, their democratic right.

She also won the popular vote. Sidenote, third parties are a stain on the American democracy. Don't vote for them, you're giving your vote to Trump. Ako is wrong, you won't help them grow, you'll give the election to a racist orangutang.

No, third parties are not a stain on democracy. What!?

A duopoly system where only two parties are allowed to be viable is a stain on democracy.

They don't work in a two party system like the US.

If you vote third party in America you're essentially throwing away your vote. It's been a two-party system for centuries and I don't see it changing any time soon.

In any case, Gary Johnson voters are more closely aligned with Clinton than Trump. He got three million votes in Florida, and look what happened as a result.

There's a reason Canada's immigration website crashed.

Who cares bud, i hppe trump wins so he deports your Muslim turkish ass back to Istanbul.

So speaks the Mexican

Why idiots shouldn't get to vote.

Ten thousand grown adults voted for a dead gorilla.

Off-Topic Discussion / A Third Election Thread Because Why The Hell Not
« on: 8 November 2016, 09:21:01 AM »
Welp, elections are officially happening today in America folks.

Wish us luck.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14