You might not be the best person to have this discussion, as you seem prone to making sweeping generalisations based on the scantest of evidence. "The leftists"? You can speak for all their intentions and imaginations? No. You can't. I wonder what other logical nonsense you entertain when attempting to understand the world around you... It must be terrifying.
Because of his lisp? Do you live in the 50s, where these ridiculous stereotypes are not considered laughably outdated and inaccurate? Your bizarre stance on the modern world makes a lot more sense now, as it appears you are stuck in the past. It must be really scary to realise that people will point out the lazy reasoning you frequently use to judge people.
The science shows us that it's not as simple as you assume it is. You not knowing about something and then using your ignorance to attack others only ends up making you look silly, and has no effect on those you are attacking.
A quick lesson in the hopes of saving you from embarrassing yourself: Muslims have their own opinions, in precisely the same way non-Muslims do. Logic is your friend.
Maybe if you didn't put labels on people to such a staggering degree, and thinking that all wearers of a label you've given them think entirely the same, you'd have fewer problems with people calling out your lazy thought processes. In a single post your argument hinges on all "SJWs" thinking exactly the same, and all "leftists" too. You appear to be terrible at critical thinking. No wonder you are so confused and angry.
Your comment was nuked because you made a baseless claim that they don't want to integrate. That is degrading. If you can't see why, you should get a refund on your education, as it failed you massively. If you could post the verbatim full text of your comment we could get to the bottom of this. As it is it sounds like your lack of critical thinking and desire to leap to the inaccurate led to the nuking, which is fair enough. I guess the Guardian doesn't want their comments section filled with idiots making stupid generalisations about people they don't know anything about.
How on Earth is this silencing him? This isn't *his* platform, anyway - it's people selling goods licensed by Trump. That's it. It's not shutting him out of debates, stopping any mention of him on TV, or so on. Getting all confused and making ridiculous claims like that is not helping.
Well, he did call the Mexicans rapists and criminals, but tempered it afterwards by claiming not all of them are.
"Race" doesn't really mean anything - there is no scientific underpinning to the term, and it has many definitions, including groups of people with a strong identity and shared culture, which would quite reasonably mean "Muslims" are a race, as Muslims by definition share a strong identity and culture. The same can be said for Mexicans. This is the problem with using poorly-defined terms - the more vague a term is the less use it has. It might make your argument easier to just pick one definition that supports your argument, but it doesn't stop other people from using a definition which supports their argument. An accurate term doesn't have this problem.
As for the immigration debate, if the costs of application are far beyond the means of your average Mexican, it's no wonder so many will seek to further their families by doing it illegally. It would make sense to lower the costs/barriers for applying to ensure as many people can do it legally as possible. The immigrants are coming whether you want them to or not - the question is are you going to make them not want to register? The feeling of persecution felt by those attempting to do the right thing and improve their family's lot and being turned away because they don't have the requisite amount of money to apply simply can not be underestimated.
Back to the discussion at hand: Amazon is a private company. The people attempting a boycott are private citizens. They have a right to tell Amazon what they would like Amazon to do, and Amazon has a right to not listen if it doesn't want to. Boycotts have been a part of the western democratic process since its birth.
Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous 2. Are aware of the proposed boycott 3. Buy from Amazon 4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon 5. Bothered to sign the petition
Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.
The point doesn't still stand. You are confused. Yes, they call themselves communist, but that doesn't make it the case. I guess you think North Korea is a democracy and a republic if all it takes is a name.
Tell that to the US courts who have deemed waterboarding to be torture for decades. We know it doesn't work, yet some people (yourself included) are willing to overlook that for some good ol' fashioned vengeance, regardless of the demonstrable harm it causes the US.
So you think only gay people like shiny watches? Is that it? Or is your sense of humour so flawed you need to stoop to obvious inaccuracies and prejudices in order to make tired, unfunny Bernard Manning-esque jokes? What's next - jokes about "spastics"?
You are not painting a particularly noble picture of yourself with your xenophobia and homophobia.
"Consume" is synonymous with "use" or "utilise", so no, its use is perfectly valid in this context. Why did you assume you were correct instead of spending a few seconds to read the definition? You'd have taught yourself something, and not told the world how your hubris has blinded you to your shortcomings. I hope you don't vote, as you are quite likely not as informed as you seem to think you are.
Your position reeks of paranoia. You've got to show why this has not the likeliest explanation, but some complicated scheme involving not just hackers, but hackers working with a cabal of government/reptilians/whatever trying to skew your precious mind.
To me this sounds like business as usual: 'Bad guys' have some data, 'good guys' take it and release it. Who is good and bad is subjective, however, hence the quotes.
The bullshit has many faces: You are forgetting when it was possible for anyone to make controllers, the number of fake controllers was quite high, causing people to get ripped off and/or having a poor gaming experience. Both of those negatively impacted the console creators, as people perceived their products to be shoddy (when in fact it was shoddy third party components). It's understandable, but regrettable, that it's come to this.
Slashdot Mirror
The scientists sold the war in Iraq? I don't even...
So where are these papers? Care to cite some? We can wait...
You might not be the best person to have this discussion, as you seem prone to making sweeping generalisations based on the scantest of evidence. "The leftists"? You can speak for all their intentions and imaginations? No. You can't. I wonder what other logical nonsense you entertain when attempting to understand the world around you... It must be terrifying.
Convenience of argument.
Because of his lisp? Do you live in the 50s, where these ridiculous stereotypes are not considered laughably outdated and inaccurate? Your bizarre stance on the modern world makes a lot more sense now, as it appears you are stuck in the past. It must be really scary to realise that people will point out the lazy reasoning you frequently use to judge people.
Way to miss the point - it's a gay guy "harassing" a homophobe simply by being in their presence.
And you apparently have no sense of humour, and a bunch of issues surrounding homosexuality.
The science shows us that it's not as simple as you assume it is. You not knowing about something and then using your ignorance to attack others only ends up making you look silly, and has no effect on those you are attacking.
A quick lesson in the hopes of saving you from embarrassing yourself: Muslims have their own opinions, in precisely the same way non-Muslims do. Logic is your friend.
Maybe if you didn't put labels on people to such a staggering degree, and thinking that all wearers of a label you've given them think entirely the same, you'd have fewer problems with people calling out your lazy thought processes. In a single post your argument hinges on all "SJWs" thinking exactly the same, and all "leftists" too. You appear to be terrible at critical thinking. No wonder you are so confused and angry.
Your comment was nuked because you made a baseless claim that they don't want to integrate. That is degrading. If you can't see why, you should get a refund on your education, as it failed you massively. If you could post the verbatim full text of your comment we could get to the bottom of this. As it is it sounds like your lack of critical thinking and desire to leap to the inaccurate led to the nuking, which is fair enough. I guess the Guardian doesn't want their comments section filled with idiots making stupid generalisations about people they don't know anything about.
It's more about getting cold hard criticism of one's work than being insulted. Do you conflate those in your head? Ouch.
Does he qualify that claim with some supporting evidence, or is it more a hand-wavey claim?
and C) possibly ushering in the end of their beloved ICEs.
How on Earth is this silencing him? This isn't *his* platform, anyway - it's people selling goods licensed by Trump. That's it. It's not shutting him out of debates, stopping any mention of him on TV, or so on. Getting all confused and making ridiculous claims like that is not helping.
So you don't have an argument beyond "metaphors confuse me!"
Well, he did call the Mexicans rapists and criminals, but tempered it afterwards by claiming not all of them are.
"Race" doesn't really mean anything - there is no scientific underpinning to the term, and it has many definitions, including groups of people with a strong identity and shared culture, which would quite reasonably mean "Muslims" are a race, as Muslims by definition share a strong identity and culture. The same can be said for Mexicans. This is the problem with using poorly-defined terms - the more vague a term is the less use it has. It might make your argument easier to just pick one definition that supports your argument, but it doesn't stop other people from using a definition which supports their argument. An accurate term doesn't have this problem.
As for the immigration debate, if the costs of application are far beyond the means of your average Mexican, it's no wonder so many will seek to further their families by doing it illegally. It would make sense to lower the costs/barriers for applying to ensure as many people can do it legally as possible. The immigrants are coming whether you want them to or not - the question is are you going to make them not want to register? The feeling of persecution felt by those attempting to do the right thing and improve their family's lot and being turned away because they don't have the requisite amount of money to apply simply can not be underestimated.
Back to the discussion at hand: Amazon is a private company. The people attempting a boycott are private citizens. They have a right to tell Amazon what they would like Amazon to do, and Amazon has a right to not listen if it doesn't want to. Boycotts have been a part of the western democratic process since its birth.
Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
2. Are aware of the proposed boycott
3. Buy from Amazon
4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon
5. Bothered to sign the petition
Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.
I hope you can see where you went wrong.
The cost to immigrate legally to the US is too expensive for many, hence them entering illegally. The laws might be lax, but the cost is prohibitive.
The point doesn't still stand. You are confused. Yes, they call themselves communist, but that doesn't make it the case. I guess you think North Korea is a democracy and a republic if all it takes is a name.
Tell that to the US courts who have deemed waterboarding to be torture for decades. We know it doesn't work, yet some people (yourself included) are willing to overlook that for some good ol' fashioned vengeance, regardless of the demonstrable harm it causes the US.
You suck at being a human being.
So you think only gay people like shiny watches? Is that it? Or is your sense of humour so flawed you need to stoop to obvious inaccuracies and prejudices in order to make tired, unfunny Bernard Manning-esque jokes? What's next - jokes about "spastics"?
You are not painting a particularly noble picture of yourself with your xenophobia and homophobia.
"Consume" is synonymous with "use" or "utilise", so no, its use is perfectly valid in this context. Why did you assume you were correct instead of spending a few seconds to read the definition? You'd have taught yourself something, and not told the world how your hubris has blinded you to your shortcomings. I hope you don't vote, as you are quite likely not as informed as you seem to think you are.
Your position reeks of paranoia. You've got to show why this has not the likeliest explanation, but some complicated scheme involving not just hackers, but hackers working with a cabal of government/reptilians/whatever trying to skew your precious mind.
To me this sounds like business as usual: 'Bad guys' have some data, 'good guys' take it and release it. Who is good and bad is subjective, however, hence the quotes.
The bullshit has many faces: You are forgetting when it was possible for anyone to make controllers, the number of fake controllers was quite high, causing people to get ripped off and/or having a poor gaming experience. Both of those negatively impacted the console creators, as people perceived their products to be shoddy (when in fact it was shoddy third party components). It's understandable, but regrettable, that it's come to this.