Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
Oh yeah I posted that just to make clear that this is a bad idea. Clearly his personal lawyer is either incompetent, playing 4D chess (lol), or non existent.
-
http://wshu.org/post/alex-jones-backtracking-now-says-sandy-hook-shooting-did-happen#stream/0
Very interesting development here. I don't know if he even has personal lawyers.
-
10 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:
He technically 'has' to do no such thing. Perhaps you won't be convinced without more evidence, but he wasn't trying to convince anyone - Karnage was saying he found times Mr. Jones could be serious, and you jumped on him and demanded an example, which he promptly gave you, but you basically discarded his example without ever saying if you'd even watched the stupid thing or not. If you haven' seen it, it shouldn't be very difficult to look it up and see it for yourself, and then if you don't agree with him you can just say 'I disagree' and drop it. There's no need for people on here to always be about convincing everyone else their opinion is the right one, but that's more or less what I see a lot of every time I come on here, and is why I generally avoid Serious Discussion if I can help it.
This being said, I will say that I've only heard the name Alex Jones in passing once or twice on one of the Daily Wire shows before today, and I still don't know who the guy is - and don't want to, particularly as I'm one of those so-called 'conspiracy nuts' you guys are busily blasting away at and am partially worried I may try to defend the man if I knew the story and thus end up with half of Serious Discussion(or at least you, Raven, judging from the Net Neutrality Thread) dogpiling me for going against the grain.
EDIT: I got a bit heated. I'll respond in a moment.
1) I looked over the net neutrality thread and I can see why you'd think people were jumping on you, but many were just being matter of fact due to the fact that a bunch of things in that thread were widely discredited, and none of that was from you. That's kind of how it goes. Having that said, I was pretty informal in asking because I found it kind of absurd, seeing as I looked up both actors.
2) We all have our own conspiracies, but this is the guy circulating things like "the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax/false flag to take our guns away" and "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza place in DC." Those conspiracies. Not stuff like the Koch brothers controlling a ton of Republicans. When we say "conspiracy nuts," it's people who say things like 9/11 didn't actually happen and the Holocaust didn't happen/it wasn't 11 million people. This is Alex Jones tier conspiracy nut.
3) People who post in this subforum are held to a standard. Do not take it personally, but any opinion in here is open to challenge, and it's a safe forum if everyone is open to learning. Also, I'm not sure why you came in here to post that you don't know who Alex Jones is; you're better off dealing with this via PM, especially if your issue is with me, because if you're going to get personal I'm not going to indulge you in public, and I'll be far, far more open to hear it in private.
4) I'm not willing to listen to a long (probably on the order of 30+ minutes) talk and refute it just to indulge a user that I know will not take anything said to contradict him seriously. Furthermore, the two actors involved in said talk were Sandy Hook conspirators. If he hones in specifically on what he found convincing, then a discussion can be had, because it's possible I won't even specifically see what he liked about it! Otherwise he is soapboxing or not trying to discuss anything. It doesn't help that I don't find the recommendation or the actual video credible enough to watch. He has a chance to convince me to watch it by giving me a summary, but instead he chooses not to respond and you choose to call me out for little reason other than to make this oddly personal...
5) To make this fully relevant to Alex Jones, this might be why someone has heard their name lately. He has thrown his shit into the ring to dilute the news pool, and it has done lasting damage on a number of people who have already had horrifying things happen to them. He's extremely harmful to the country.
-
2 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:
a few days ago during a live stream when they were talking about the Syrian airstrikes with Paul Joseph Watson
you have to definitely give a lot more info than that
what made it convincing?
what did he say that convinced you?
etc etc
I find it hard to believe he's convincing in any way
-
1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:
The times he gets serious he can be really convincing.
Like when?
-
He's an act that pretty much appeals to the fringe conspiracy theorists. He's a crazy ass guy who says crazy ass things for ratings. It's very scary that he's more or less conditioned many in our society against fact.
To add to that wonderful and woefully trippy LWT segment (because I swear, half the time I see LWT i felt like I just took acid) here's a representation of how parents of victims are harassed by conspiracy theorists:
https://videosift.com/wtf/video/False-Flag-Hoaxers-Claim-Mass-Shootings-Are-Staged
A lot of this seems to be pretty much a follow-up from other commentators like Rush Limbaugh as well, and a natural evolution into something even more absurd. But rest assured, you're not the crazy one; he's been saying crazy shit for years and indoctrinating Americans on things that aren't logic while flaunting his riches in public.
I'll end this on this note:
-
should have all the info on it
-
4 hours ago, Hekselka said:
So we're almost there? Kind of weird to believe this series might end with the Cell saga. It's been going on for so long and I followed it way back since the start.
I know right! Dragonball Super was literally announced, began, and ended in the time it took TFS to finish android saga.
Props to those guys; this project was like almost a decade long, and extremely comprehensive. It's really hard to sustain that especially as you get older and busier. Even if we may not agree with the direction they've taken (well honestly I'm fine with it, but with changing styles you can't expect everyone to be wholly on board), let's just give these guys a hand for their patience and persistence on this project.
-
Very late news:
Not an april fools either.
-
It's interesting, because Las Vegas has enacted some policies in place to make sure police were specifically trained to de-escalate rather than shoot first ask later or something. Shoots have gone down 36% since 2010 until around 2017.
However, the LVMPD (las vegas metropolitan police department) is actually understaffed as a result of some of the rigor that is required to become an officer. I think what stands in the way is funding and staffing issues, and I'm not sure if the state prefers an oversized police staff to an undersized one.
-
Yeah I don't think this will do anything to him if grab em by the pussy didn't.
-
1 minute ago, Charmeleonbrah said:
Deep State: Heh, Drumpf is done for this time guys, with all the stories coming out about him getting top-shelf p***y.
What the f are you trying to say?
-
19 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:
@Shoblongoo I would ask them to get tested for STDs, and probably would ask them not to wear a white dress on our wedding day, as much as that might not make sense to a lot of people. I need people to know that I married someone who made mistakes and is ready to move on from them.
I think you may want to rethink this somewhat. It almost sounds like you kinda want her to shame herself by outing that she's not a virgin. (Which is why I'm saying that shaming comes from everyone, because this really does feel like shaming, even though it's a Christian tradition).
I mean I get you're pretty religious, but to a very large extent that is between her, you, and whatever deity you believe in. Not something to parade about in public. However, if she doesn't mind it then it's whatever. I just think the implications of asking someone to not wear a white dress is just mean.
-
I think they're disagreeing on human nature, and how part of humanity is holding back your impulses rather than acting on them.
I think what we disagree on is that I view these impulses due to human nature as an inevitably that must be worked around when it comes to implementation of policy, whereas they view it as something that we should all make an effort to control. I can agree with the latter, but saying that we should be doing something is irrelevant to evidence-based policy.
It's a pretty minor point, to be honest. But it's a matter of separating the individual from the population.
-
16 minutes ago, Solvaij said:
Look, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm not sitting here promoting abstinence-only sex-ed. I just threw out an opinion on this topic.
What I disagree with is the pervasive attitude that people can't be expected to control their impulses. That promotes poor behavior and excuse-making (not with sex, just in general). You act because you want to act, not because you're forced to by some animalistic drive.
Sex is a natural part of life for most people, and when you choose to become sexually active is no one's business but your own. But it's still a choice. It's still something you can control.
If you're not trying to start anything you should probably read some of the stickies on this forum. You probably shouldn't post a viewpoint if you're not expecting scrutiny. That's how this subforum works.
Regardless, it's not so much that people can't control impulses, so much as people will act impulsively no matter what. I've brought forth a lot of the statistics to show that people (teenagers) often act on impulses, and it's strictly due to human nature they do so. Just because you and I can control our impulses doesn't mean every other human being can be trusted to do so.
I think you and your immediate friends might be trusted to not act on impulses, but I can tell you that my high school friends were very 50/50 on it (and my other high school had my immediate friends rarely acting on impulses, it's quite variable!). High school kids are generally pretty exploratory and impulsive, for reasons that are not necessarily out of their control. The statistics to represent a whole population definitely back this up, the science backs this up, what more is there? People can control their impulses, but teenagers are really bad at it, and it's partially because of an animalistic drive. Sex is pretty much the most animalistic thing we do aside from slaughter others over territory and caring more about our next of kin than ourselves.
It is absolutely not excuse-making or promotion of poor behavior, at any rate. It's a legitimate issue that we can't curb, only work around. That's how most real-life things are. There are deficiencies that result from the fact that the human mind is overall not completely rational and the population at large has an issue that maybe individuals won't. Rather than trying to eliminate it, you have to make sure people are safe when they are participating, because eliminating an issue is a very lofty and often impractical task when you're dealing with millions or billions of humans.
-
36 minutes ago, Solvaij said:
Yes. That's what I said.
Okay, so what part are you disagreeing with? I don't actually understand.The issue is that abstinence based education is actively harmful because teenagers don't participate in abstinence. If you want to read the statistics, a whopping 41% of high school students have had sex. The rate of teen pregnancy and sex has gone down 13% partially due to increased usage of contraceptives.
It's extremely common. The issue is not how to curb it, the issue is how to prevent it from ruining lives through pregnancy. Abstinence won't fix it; even though the rate has gone down, it's clearly happening very often and teaching kids how to safely do it as opposed to never do it is far more productive. Especially because sex is a very natural part of life.
In summary, I don't know what point you're making. Teenagers have pretty poor impulse control and addiction issues. They're notorious for poor judgment. Saying "don't have sex" won't fix that, but at least teaching safe sex on all phases will help significantly.
On 3/15/2018 at 2:09 PM, Silver-Haired Maiden said:That. That in its entirety exactly. I think attitudes have changed among younger generations to the point that even the thought of abstinence is shamed as being a prude or a weird way of thinking of things and I've often said that believe it or not you can actually keep your privates in your pants (or whatever other thing you wear) so yes, it is still a viable way of handling things.
Not the only way. But a viable way.
People tend to be equally shamed, and depending on the region moreso, for being fuckboys and sluts too.
Some regions might shame virgins. It all is a matter of where you grew up. I've personally heard all kinds of shaming in equal magnitudes. At some point we have to realize that teenagers are just ignorant haters.
-
On 3/15/2018 at 1:33 PM, Solvaij said:
Yeah... I just don't believe that. I think one of the nice things about being human (and this is kind of a personal belief but whatever) is impulse control.
So they have a natural impulse for sex, and you think human beings control it? Is that your point here? Because that impulse control doesn't prevent two hormonal teenagers from doing it.
Regardless, that's all well and good, but it's a pretty bad idea to trust teenagers will have impulse control.
-
As it currently stands now, we've been running pretty smoothly in the absence of smash fervor. Growth's been tiny, but as is to be expected as the hype dies down.
We have had some weird issues in the past due to the casual nature of the Discord, but now all four mods (me, @Elieson, @Batter the Beast, @Euklyd) have gone through everything and weeded out any and all potential issues completely and thoroughly. There should no longer be any issues with weird permissions in the Discord. Only those that deserve power have it. We've checked via bot scripts and everything.
Having that said, we've re-emphasized the Smash part and we're still here. Invite link in the OP still works. Feel free to drop by if you want to talk, speculate, see news (@Jedi will be mostly compiling news and will let us know as we get more and more news, and he is also our principle TO). If you wanna play Melee or Smash 4 online or something, then we have a channel for matches. Earlier smash game stuff has a general chat. Other than that, we have a general fighting game chat, a monster hunter chat, fire emblem, fe heroes, politics, anime, ranting zone, homework help, activities centers, HaruFE, etc. It's a fun discord. Feel free to drop by! I'm always excited to see more people there.
-
On 3/4/2018 at 3:36 PM, Phillius the Crestfallen said:
His campaign that was carried on the backs of people who thought Obama was going to steal a 3rd term, take all the guns away, and become a dictator. Trump has just insinuated he'd like to do all 3 of those things in the span of a week, but at this point I doubt it will matter.
Yeah though I'm pretty sure he was joking.
The issue is that joking about fundamental rights in a position of this magnitude is very bad especially in a bad context. It's a meeting with leaders, not the WHCD.
-
7 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:
A little late to the trigger, but here we see the most disgusting remark Trump has made to date.
I can't think of anything to add to this really, it just speaks for itself.
Definitely not the most disgusting. This was more or less his campaign
-
Quote
“If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2,” Trump replied. “Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.”
so why do it you moron
-
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:
It's a lot more complicated than that. The problem is that my own knowledge of Islam is shaky, hence why I haven't done a comparison between the religions.
It's not that much more complicated. Those are the key differences in the history of the three books, everything else is just put around the context of their times (given that the books were written centuries apart, it makes sense).
-
I don't think that's inherently immoral; it's just impractical. A life isn't less valuable because they have a single parent even without the best home life, and giving birth isn't immoral.
Regardless, abstinence isn't necessarily moral. Pregnancy out of wedlock is often unintended and occurs because people do not practice safe sex with very few exceptions. Sex before marriage is an inevitability because human beings are naturally pretty horny, and abstinence-based sex education is harmful in lieu of sex education about safe sex.
-
I thought it was because infant mortality rate was high and outlawing homosexuality ensured reproduction or something
What's up with Alex Jones/Bill Hicks?
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Also because it's a visual novel and not real life. I doubt it emulates the Japanese legal system, too.