Yes, we are done here, because I already told you to fuck off to your atheism thread.

Sorry but you don't have any fucking idea what you are talking about in the slightest. Again, as I said before, you are simply another form of religious zealot completely convinced of the correctitude of your belief system, and I find debating the validity of peoples beliefs to be an asinine task even if you were capable of an intellectually honest debate on this topic. Take it to the atheism thread, no one is interested in watching you jerk yourself off here and it is off topic.

Exactly, that is my number #1 criticism of atheism. Without the concept of God, however you perceive it, the state becomes the defacto God as the highest authority on Earth, accountable to no one. This is why in the USA all of our constitutional rights are "God given" rights, or inalienable if you prefer, as the state can neither grant them nor take them away. Coincidentally this is one reason why I find Communism so abhorrent because its goal is to become the secular God, and as you said history shows how that turns out...

Thank God for the constitution and honest judges.

https://abc7ny.com/health/judge-rules-against-rockland-countys-state-of-emergency/5235890/

Not just myself, but other vocal critics of the status quo around here. Hhampuz essentially confirmed this fact for him at least with his last statement. You picking a single instance out of a hat is not representative of the overall pattern of behavior regarding the trust system.

We all know you don't really give a shit about the rating I left for Armis, this is just you making a pathetic effort to try to again dig up and leverage ancient history to attempt to shame me into removing my rating for you, which is why I will never do it because of exactly this type of manipulative behavior. Your approval means nothing to me, either logistically or personally, and that is a result of your own duplicitous behavior.

This is again indicative of the pattern of condemnation over a single incident blown totally out of proportion that was not repeated, being a permanent albatross around my neck because I refused to submit to the hypocritical double standards and unwritten rules of this forum. Because of this I was punitively punished in a multitude of ways, including being the VERY FIRST exclusion on this forum ever, the staff making sure I could not be on the DT regardless of having enough users who trusted me to be on it. Of course the creation of exclusions directly after this act of principled defiance was totally a coincidence I am sure.

Users on the default trust are expected to uphold certain standards, yet these standards are not objective, and not published anywhere. This is equivalent to expecting one to uphold a contract which you are never allowed to read, you don't consent to, and the terms of which can change at any time. How is this logical? How do you conform to standards if they are not objective, available for review, nor affirmatively consented to? This is asinine. This has been the problem I have been pointing out for YEARS, but no one really gives a shit because it is only a direct problem for the minority.

Unfortunately the indirect result is the erosion of the culture of the forum, and the creation of an avenue for unscrupulous actors to leverage the years of effort to build a good trust history against the most honest users of the forum. Of course once it happens to them they suddenly become very sympathetic, and it costs very little to pile on the condemnation as opposed to supporting otherwise valuable contributors who add to the common good of the forum at the personal cost of their own reputations. This system breeds paranoia, distrust, duplicity, mob behavior, and is destructive to the cohesiveness of the forum community in general.

No thanks, enjoy your self proclaimed correctitide of your choice belief system.

This is where I have to push back. This is not a solution, and attempting to do so will create significantly more bloodshed and pain on all sides from all religious backgrounds as well as the secular world. Banning any religion is never going to be a solution, as history shows. Furthermore atheism itself is just another system of belief based upon just as much evidence, none.

Religion serves many constructive purposes, also many destructive purposes. As any organization, it is vulnerable to infiltration and subversion for destructive purposes, it doesn't have to even be a religion. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be restrained and checked, but I find it quite simplistic, childish, and counterproductive to attempt to just blanket ban religion as a whole.

However this is getting quite far off topic and belongs more in the atheism thread you are quite fond of, which I specifically avoid because as I stated atheism is just another form of religion, and you can't reason with religious zealots convinced of their correctitude, be they theist or atheist.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-07/multiple-chinese-boeing-787s-grounded-after-gps-rollover-glitch

This problem was known for a long time. This seems to me like politically motivated leveraging in order to purposely target US manufacturing, specifically one that does a lot of military contracting. As I said before I think there may be some form of sabotage involved in these crashes in addition to poor design.

Do I have to start a count of how much this logical fallacy of tu quoque is used? We have been over this. Christianity has been through a serious reform process separating the state from the religion, Islam has not.




Bitcoin is not a political system, it is literally just data sitting on inanimate objects. Islam consists of people who make up entire countries with aspirations for a global caliphate. I am glad you brought up the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims, because in Western nations they get special treatment as minorities, but they are by no means a minority of any kind.

Additionally the fact that Islam is so large is EVEN MORE of an argument that it should be reformed because the impact is that much larger. The fact is Islam refuses to reform itself, so it is extremely hypocritical of Muslims to cry about criticisms of Islam if they refuse to control their own people for whatever reasons.

Until Islam reforms itself and stops seeking domination and submission of non-Muslims through violence or other wise THERE WILL ALWAYS be conflict and collective blame regardless of how many innocent individuals there are. I suggest if you don't like it you look to your Muslim brothers and sisters and find ways to change Islam, because if you don't, outsiders will, and at that point they aren't going to care much about your opinions on the matter. Those that live by the sword die by the sword, and those that stand idly by while their own shed blood are not innocent.

Very nice summary. One thing you kind of overlooked is that he specifically said he intended to cause freedoms such as second amendment rights to be taken in reaction to his acts, specifically in the USA, which he hoped would result in civil war (probably right). The fact is these governments around the world are giving him everything he had hoped for on a silver platter.

I am sorry to hear that. While I appreciate your sentiment in this thread, I would suggest you look closely within your shared group of friends and reach out to them as statistically speaking when some one ends their life others close to them often follow. IMO this is where you are most likely to make the biggest difference.

You sure convinced me.

I really don't know what you mean by "the same for both sides" as it doesn't really make any sense. Do you really believe that newbies are randomly showing up with strong opinions in meta right off the bat? Come on man I know you are not that naive.

I agree all the infighting is shit, but you know what, without that drama no one gives a FUCK about any of this, until it is their ass in the sling of course, then suddenly their eyes are wide open. It is really easy to let it all be when you are not a target and find yourself comfortably within the in group, and of course there is strong incentive to stay there by not rocking the boat.

People have already decided they are going to penalize me because of their personal feelings or ulterior motives. As a result, I really don't have any incentive to be very nice any more now do I? The ones who know I am trustworthy will continue to trust me and the ones who have judged me will continue to do so even if I start handing out hugs and ass kisses. That is the flip side of the in group, people ostracized with no avenue for redemption. So be it, I will do my best to be a thorn in the side of the worst perpetrators until people start doing something about these issues.

I know simple logic is a problem for you, but I didn't leave you a rating over it so, this can pretty much be summarized as you again trying to contrive my criticism of you as abuse of the trust system. You however have repeatedly used the trust system as a tool of retaliation against those who criticize you. Not the same things at all, but you know this and are simply being disingenuous as usual.





I don't think you do any of those things either. Regarding pressure to not voice opinions, I can only make that conclusion based on private messages of support I get from users here on some of these issues that for some reason they don't feel like they can state publicly.

Also the fact that people who have repeatedly trusted me with large sums some how don't feel I am worth an inclusion, or even outright exclude my self as well as other vocal critics with very solid reputations with no explanation. Of course if this was the case no one would admit to it...

How long do you think it will be before they start declaring you unfit for XYZ? Are you seeing the pattern yet?

http://www.hideoutnow.com/2019/04/new-zealand-police-confiscate-airsoft.html

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/luis-valdes/nz-confiscations-begin-police-going-to-gun-owners-homes-jobs-one-gun-owner-dead/

Do you go around compulsively negative rating people with little to no substantiation? Do you abuse your position on the trust list to silence people who disagree with or criticize you? Do you coordinate with others to make sure people who criticize your in group are excluded? No? Then I am not talking about you. I am very sorry you feel offended by my statements. I would however consider you part of the later group of people intimidated into not supporting people whom you otherwise would agree with in order to protect yourself from these unscrupulous users populating the default trust.

You mean like when you are caught abusing your position in the default trust to punish people for criticizing you and you pretend like it was justified over and over again even though you fail to substantiate your claims? Thanks for being yet another example of the dog pile that results any time the chosen are criticized.

I think you are having delusions again. Go take your meds.