Default banner

#Barney

This is a Schrödinger's Cat problem...

Barney is either:
1. A singing purple dinosaur.
or
2. Neil Patrick Harris in a suit.

Total topics: 5

It is hard to be an open nazi these days. This is unfortunate for nazis. So when we push for pro white policies that allows people to rightly label us as white nationalists, which is not a politically viable position considering all the non whites flooding western countries.

However what the left cannot do is engage in religious bigotry. I know they do, but it is harder to justify, so pro white policies can be co ducted with the christian flag and I encourage white nationalists to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. 

Potential policies and how to word it like a Christian.

1. Eradicating Jewish people

Call it something like "let's return God's people to the holy land so we can be ready for Christ's return"

2. Eugenics

Satan will carry a specific DNA sequence so we have to make sure babies with defective DNA are culled.

3. Nationalism

We are the new Israel and God wants us to be pure and crush our enemies in the name of love.

Just spit balling here but I think using Christianity as a flag could work and it allows a small movement to exert more influence by being loud members of a bigger organization that is still small enough where holding significant influence is doable
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
59 10
The following are a series of bullet points that really are linked thoughts.
  • At present it would appear...
  • he gets away with his name being saved from you putting in the moderation log the real reason he was banned
  • because he 'asked for it'
  • also I need to know if under the rules him asking for it means he can make an alt
  • or if he's permanently banned

There are 2 fundamental issues, ignoring my own aggrievances here.

The issues are:
  1. All users that are permanently banned cannot legally make alts here and almost no member here other than Death23 with doxxing threats has deserved a permaban as much as Lancelot has.
  2. All banishments of users require the real reason(s) to be displayed, whether or not the users asked for it if that includes other reasons. On their profiles and to the userbase via the moderation log.
I am unclear on if on a technicality he's evaded justice and is allowed to make alts like all other users who self-request bans are permitted. What I am clear on is that we the people of DART and I personally ought to know if this absolutely sadistic and vile bully is banned for good or not. I have endured quite enough abuse, he has essentially told me that I'm worthless and to hate myself and off myself and gone through votebombing and other things to achieve that goal, goading me to feel insane or idiotic for thinking he was doing those things to me. I ought to at the very least have the justice of seeing his name have the genuine violations he committed on his profile and told to all.

There is no reason not to do so at all, it's not cleaner, better or more justified, it just makes members confused, frustrated and/or ill-informed regarding a major moderation decision here.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
16 7
They have banned several users and removed voting privileges and all sorts and not written any of it in the moderation logs for months.

What is the log for then?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
2 2
It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads.  They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents.  They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.

But this is why I say they are cowards.  Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe.  For instance, what do Atheists believe? 

Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative. That is it.  Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor. 

Hence why Atheists are COWARDS.   They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground.  Bogus. really. 

Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No.   nary  a one. LOL! laughable. And weak.  Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion?  It would be laughed out of the stadium.  that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them. 

My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum.   An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered.  Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.

Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome. 

We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Atheists have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms.  By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.  


Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
203 28
Despite Ragnar's claims that he went toe-to-toe against Roy, it's difficult to say for certain precisely how strong of a debater Ragnar actually is, since he has never been remotely challenged (unlike Oromagi, who at least went against Jeff from the top 20). 

Judging from his abortion debate against PGA (the only truly competent person who debated him on DART), it's difficult to say for sure. He kept continuing using the idea of "collection of cells", which surely would've fallen under a more competent debater like MisterChris. His comparison to slavery was hard for me to tear down, but I knew it was flawed, and Chris notes that the women's own choice makes it difficult to sustain (not to mention I could only find one research that said 92% of abortions are unintended pregnancies). Pro also didn't use the uncertainty principle, which was Chris's nail in the coffin that defeated me. I don't know if Ragnar would've been able to link the legality impact, as Ragnar's analysis of specific laws and politics are uncertain (unless he's actually on Roy's level). As for my personal loss, it's well known that I am pretty much way below average when playing devil's advocate for the most part.

Going through his DDO debates though, it's definitive that he's probably at least above average level, if not on Oromagi or Whiteflame's current level. He managed to defeat an above average user about sociology. And while Oromagi was still in his unstructured version, some one random voter was convinced that Ragnar won about self-driving cars (though to be fair, Oromagi was fighting an uphill battle). The closest Ragnar was to being beaten was in a Star Trek debate, where bladerunner voted in his opponent's favor (though Maikuru has not been defeated either, and voted for Ragnar). He definitely has improved since, but due to lack of debating against serious opponents, it's difficult to say if Ragnar is truly on Roy Latham's level. I heavily doubt he would win big issues, such as gun control, death penalty, etc. How good do you guys think Ragnar actually is? 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
11 4