Avatar of j8cob
  • Last Seen: 2 mos ago
  • Old Guild Username: j8cob
  • Joined: 13 yrs ago
  • Posts: 2468 (0.54 / day)
  • VMs: 3
  • Username history
    1. j8cob 13 yrs ago

Status

Recent Statuses

6 yrs ago
Current All the guy did was change his pic to a swastika, say some entry-level /pol/ bytes, and changed his bio to basic slurs.
6 yrs ago
You know exactly who.
1 like
6 yrs ago
I don't know why we can't blast both zoophiles and pedophiles at the same time. Two birds one stone.
7 likes
6 yrs ago
idk who needs to hear this but if you like women then you're gay, no ifs ands or buts
4 likes
7 yrs ago
I'm back.
1 like

Bio

Bitch, I'm the best.

Most Recent Posts



Unrelated to that: Necro should just keep throwing the bodies at Arsenal and mostly ignore Zach. The zombie minions he's got right now could soak enough bullets to keep Necro alive and it isn't like Zach is a real threat to him. All he has to do is sidestep the attack Zach is doing right now and let the dumb kid full-force a crowbar against the concrete. It'd be pretty easy to get away at that point with Zach hurting himself and Arsenal shooting dead people instead of Necro. He'd just be down a few zombies and take a blow to his dignity.
<Snipped quote by j8cob>

Fact checking....you spoke to every single person in the world who indentifies as a creationist and asked them if they adhered to organised religion or was this more of a first page google search?

It gets a little semantical at this point, creationism is commonly seen as the religious branch of creation science which is encompassed by intelligent design which is not nessecarily religious by defination.

Ben Carson Brand which overlaps into This sometimes, its case by case.

I dont nessecarily disagree that it isnt a creationist's fault they were reaised creationist, I'm not saying they should be put in jail, but to believe psuedo science in the face of real science and claim that every real scientist is dumber than Ben Carson or lying is a poor representation of rational/logical thinking and makes him very unfit to run the country. The world is tough, its not the people's fault that your parents never told you santa claus was your uncle in a red suit, and if you are still claiming that its true after being proven its false then you are aggresively ignorant and acting like an idiot.

To summarise, ben carson can believe whatever the hell he wants, but you cant run a country on stupid ideas like pseudoscience.


Abraham Lincoln was a creationist despite the fact that the Theory of Evolution was a thing two years before he became President. The facts and evidence were out there and he still believed in the Bible's story. Would you say he was an inept President because of his disbelief of modern (at the time) science? Or would you say that, in spite of this, he was able to lead the US effectively and bring it through the darkest hour of its history?

Lincoln isn't the only President to have believed in creation after the Theory of Evolution was realized. Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, to name a few. I think that it had very little impact on how "good" of a President it made people. The denial of creationism among our Presidents didn't become common practice until over a hundred years after the Theory of Evolution.

It isn't far-fetched to presume that one's beliefs on the topic of evolution have little or even no effect on their ability to lead. Some of the best leaders throughout world history were absolutely terrible in their understanding of the sciences of their times. There are far more important and relevant qualities to determine a good leader.
@Buddha believe it or not you can have discussion without being an ass.


Irony.
Wrong.

You can belive in intelligent design or even theistic creationism without adhering to any organised religion, do some fact checking before making these claims.


You are quite possibly the only person who thinks this. I just did some fact-checking and I couldn't find a single person who identified themselves as a creationist without identifying themselves as some form of Abrahamic religion. I couldn't. Not even the plebians on tumblr or Twitter or anything, let alone any prominent names or famous people throughout history.

To the contrary, I found a good number of Christian websites that very directly state that creationism is an important part of religion with one article outright saying "creation is religion."

Just because the majority of Christians don't believe in creationism doesn't mean it isn't a very religious thing. It is entirely belief based, as religion is. People who believe in creationism had it instilled in them at a young age, as religion usually works too. From that point onward it becomes difficult for anyone who was taught creationism by their parents or parish to ever shake that belief. The way the human psyche works makes people not want to change. People can change, but they inherently don't want to. If they were trained to be super religious as a child, they will remain super religious throughout their adult life outside of rare circumstances. Your assertion that creationism has nothing to do with religion is an ignorant assertion in and of itself, ironically.
<Snipped quote by j8cob>

2030 is looking to be a shitty year. All the shaky predictions (automation of transportation industry, the moment the US outpaces pre-revolutionary France in wealth inequality, and now I guess China catching up to the west) seems to pick that date. Which makes me wonder, is that just the most comfortable date for people to use for prediction because it is far enough in the future, is 2030 really the year/decade western capitalism boils over?

Though it should be said there is a whole lot more developing world out there just waiting to become the next China. I feel like Africa might do some interesting shit before the century is over, especially now that parts of West Africa are urbanizing and growing a middle class. Time will tell I suppose.


West Africa is going to become the next Mexico. China's been investing in their resources and mining, which will put a lot of money into the hands of civilizations that don't know how to use it and won't use it for good. Best case scenario the region ends up like Mexico sometime in the next fifty years. Worst case scenario it becomes like the MidEast in that same timeframe. Either way there's gonna be a lot of money in the area and its future is gonna depend on how their leaders can handle it. If South Africa is any kind of indicator of how new wealth is handled, don't expect any African nations to rocket into 1st World countries.

Honestly, from a purely logical standpoint, China is the place to be right now. Assuming nothing changes (which I hope something does, part of the reason for my voting habits) then the western world's rising problems and dependency on China will make it become the next USA before 2050. With its rising standard of living and rapid westernization, China will become an economic haven like the US was back in the 50's. The obvious, massive downside is the environment problems with China but even then they've been passing more and more green laws. They're even joining in on the Paris Agreement. China's been waging an economic war and they've been winning, and this means that the rest of the world is going to see some major problems if they don't get on board. Once the Chinese have enough money to start purchasing gold reserves, they've won.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

Creationism is the false equivication of science and religous claims, you should be angry at carson for that, not me....
Are you sure you know what creationism is? It seems like a lot of you in this thread seems to be using it interchangably with religion. When the two are actually seperate.

And agressively ignorant is an adjective not an ad homenim. If that triggers you I dont know what to tell ya, drink some ice water maybe.


Creationism is very much related to religion and goes hand-in-hand with it. Not everyone who is religious is a creationist, but everyone who is a creationist is religious. Attacking someone on their opinion of creationism is attacking them on their religion. Now I'm all for attacking people for their religion but for people who aren't it would be hypocritical to insult another based upon their belief in creationism.

At the end of the day, I would bet Sleepy Ben is smarter than any one of us in this conversation due in part to a combination of his years of wisdom, experience, and learning. If you think he's stupid because he's a devout Christian then you have to first realize that you're below the bar you're about to set.
Again it's a negation thing. American access to manufacturing would increase, but because manufacturing would then need to pay American wages instead of Chinese slave wages, the cost of living would increase. So long as investors require a certain cut, Americans workers are going to have to make up the difference.

And don't get me wrong, I love the idea of making shit in the US. I'm not exactly financially stable, but when I can do it, I love trying to stick to local shit. Keeping my own community up seems ideal. And, you know, gives me and my people access to employment But there are problems that come from legally mandated protectionism. Aside from the cost of living rise, we'd also lose equal access to foreign markets for our exports, since they'd all have to compensate with their own protectionist measures to protect their own markets, which would slow the global economy in turn.


Casual reminder that China has been modernizing and enforcing labor laws. There will be no such thing as "cheap Chinese slave labor" in fifteen years and manufacturing our goods in China will become unsustainable for us.
Y'all racist as shit.


For you.
@Dynamo Frokane@Jotunn Draugr

I'd say that Donald Trump did exactly as I predicted and the debate went where he needed it to go. Clinton was looking like Mitt Romney out there, making the same mistakes he did. She blew her load and used everything she had against Trump and it's only the first debate. Her focus on attacking him was obvious, people will see that. But she attacked him in such a way that she can't sustain that offense for the next two debates. She has nothing new to throw at him and people are going to see that her arsenal is dry. Furthermore it was painfully obvious that Lester Holt was siding with Clinton. All the undecided people could see how he shushed the crowd every time they laughed or cheered for Trump but did nothing when the crowd sided with Clinton.

Not to mention the actual substance of what the two were saying. While Trump didn't put up hardly any offense at all, which is a good thing, being on the defense most of the time allowed him to clear up some lies and misconceptions about him at the cost of being on the defensive. A small price to pay for a big reward, considering the mainstream media outlets have been painting false pictures of him for over a year and now it's on the grind to swing undecided voters. Getting his policies and his truths out there was worth the hit he had to take. Clinton, on the other hand, spent most of her talking time lying through her teeth. People already have a massive distrust towards her and they're going to either easily detect her lies or they are going to check it out for themselves. She had put herself in a bad spot by making herself the bad guy this election so she had to go on the offensive. Problem she had was there wasn't much ammo against Trump and what little there was she used it all. She is going to be on the defensive now and she's going to be on the defensive until November.

This debate went exactly as it needed to go. Trump didn't look the best after the first thirty minutes but the desperation from Clinton was palpable. She shot herself in the foot on this debate just to make Trump look a little bit foolish. Just like with Romney in 2012, this is going to come back to bite her in the ass. Trump's demonstrated in the past how aggressive he is at these debates and he clearly and intentionally held that back last night. It's a cake walk from here. Remember: he doesn't have to fight just Clinton out there but also the moderators, as all the moderators are being provided by Clinton donors and have heavy biases. In spite of that he is in the better position between the two. The goal of these debates is to swing undecided voters and Clinton didn't play to that endgame. Now she's completely at Trump's mercy and if he wants those voters he isn't going to give her any mercy.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet