The Dink Network

Click here!

I do and Ive stated in the Why are women less violent thread.

Who doesn't?

Side note: Who saw that one coming? Probably everyone.

I think he's referring to the letter.

I agree! We should just kill off everyone religious and then problem solved.
Oh and Tom Six.

10 seconds on Google gave me this and this. Ok, so they're both Christian sites and are obviously biased, but at least they present some facts. Your turn!

Alternatively, feel free to peace off

Tom Six is the greatest threat to world peace in history. We'll never be able to live and love together while that guy wears his cowboy hat and makes movies about shitting.

I reckon someday soon the U.S government is going to lead the rest of the world in trying to abolish all religion.

the end is neighhhhhhhhhhh

World peace? Pfff! Wuss...

I reckon someday soon the U.S government is going to lead the rest of the world in trying to abolish all religion.

Nah, our government's too much of a bunch of pussies. If anyone religious complains that something's infringing on their beliefs, it becomes a national issue.

Religotard: "I DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION!"
Government: "I WILL FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON EVERYONE! DO NOT FRET, LITTLE ONE!"
The people: "But I want an abortion..."
Government: "DUCK YOU, JESUS IS SUPREME!"

Same exact thing with marriage equality and probably several other things. You could say...religion is a bit of a kind of a

HUGE DUCKING PROBLEM. So I do agree with Punisher that religion needs to go if we are to achieve world peace. But there has to be a less holocausty way to do it that won't cause more damage.

world peace - where is the fun in that geesh you party poopers

Confirmed - Msdink enjoys misery.

"If anyone religious complains that something's infringing on their beliefs, it becomes a national issue." - Skurn

Aha. USA is a religious country - fabulous marriage is legal in 36 state. Australia is a secular country - fabulous marriage is legal in 0 states... all makes sense, right? Atheists are always so full of brilliants.

Just because the US is highly christian doesn't mean people don't fight for LGBT rights or anything like that. A major reason fabulous marriage has been illegal for so long in this country is due to idiots forcing beliefs on everyone and claiming that it will destroy children.

So I don't know why you're calling me out when I describe to you how our government works in a nanny fashion. Looks like you're just using world-wide politics to call me an idiot. Like I follow every bit of political news that comes from every single piece of land in the world. I just get whatever is sent to me or whatever I come across and that's almost always US.

The UK is very religious(For western country) also they dont have separation of church and state like other English speaking countries do Queen Elizibeth 2 is a cult leader(Church of England) and her family is also.
You CANT be an Atheist/Secularist and be the head of state of the UK.

It's beyond me why the that UK worships that inbred corrupt worthless "royal" family.

Queen Elizabeth? The Queen of Australia?
That IS who you mean, right?

Yes.

That old hag needs to abdicate.

Couple of hundred years ago you could have been beheaded for saying stuff like that.

Ah, the good old days.

Nowadays, the royal family of the UK are a total joke I hear. So let's bash them some more.

If that hag was beheaded, would she run around spurting blood everywhere?

Maybe she'd spurt money around for the people. But we all know that money would probably be stuck with that family so they can buy more drugs and stuff.

Because you know, owning a palace, an enormous yard, servants, and probably the absolute best possible entertainment equipment in the world is not drug enough. I think the palace alone would make me stare at my surroundings quite often until I see visions of the universe shitting more universes into space toilets.

Maybe not beheaded abdicated would be better

Like I said I dont want to resort to violence.

Since when do you not want to resort to violence? You literally called for Tom Six's assassination once.

Not too sure if you called for the extermination of jews or other religoos though.

I said I dont WANT to resort to violence

That dosent mean I will if I HAVE to.

so that means peace on earth only if u want to? well thats not peace on earth after all its peace if preds happy and u dont piss him off...

MsDink, there are times when violence is a necessary thing to do.

Like revolutions, the executions of rapists...those kinds of things.

i disagree who gives u the right to belt someone cause u are mad u wouldnt do it if u werent so why do it if u are.. it just shows total lack of self control.

So you'd prefer governments oppress people forever and the people to never revolt?

Alrighty. I suppose you'd want to give rapists a cake and an even easier free walk, huh?

It would also help if Ken Ham was to be killed.

Like I said I dont like violence but what must be done must be done.

Ken Ham is a total joke. He's already dead.

Funny story though, I find his shitty book around here called "The Lie" and it's FULL of bullshit. Then I saw his "debate" with Bill Nye.

Just...seriously. Ken Ham is already dead. Beyond so. He is dust. He is below all forms of matter. He is a new form of nonexist. I dunno. He's ducking stupid.

Like I said I dont like violence but what must be done must be done.
When you say BUT in a sentence it negates everything that you said before.

PS i have no idea who Ken Ham is - shrugs.

When you say BUT in a sentence it negates everything that you said before.


No it doesn't.

When you say BUT in a sentence it negates everything that you said before.

No, it doesn't. Somebody's been reading far too many psychology books. If I say "I dislike cabbage BUT I'm still going to eat it if I have to", that doesn't mean I still don't dislike it. If I say "I think the world could explode tomorrow, BUT I also think it could not" doesn't mean I still don't think it could explode tomorrow, despite having said I simultaneously think it could not.

If Punisher says he hates violence but thinks somebody should still be killed for making the world a better place, that still doesn't mean he likes violence at all. In fact, he could think that killing this one person is an unfortunate necessity that will lead to less violence in the end. Death and violence are completely different things. There are plenty of people whose death, I think, would benefit this world. That just means I want those people off the face of this Earth; it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to leave out the violent part.

I'm not saying I agree with Punisher at all, but I've heard that "but disregards everything previously said" -theory/argument so many times, and it's just as dumb as ever.

So, skurn and punisher: a war to end all wars, aye?

In absolute terms it doesn't, of course, but it is one of those throwaway words people use all the time just to try to appear more noble, even when whatever they say next is completely contradictory. For example, "I dislike violence, but I'd really like to cave that guy's face in!", or "I'm no racist, but jews should just go away."

It's nothing compared to 'No Offense', though. That phrase's the worst. "No offense, but I really wish you'd ducking die!"

So, skurn and punisher: a war to end all wars, aye?

A war to end all wars would obliterate the planet. So, no.

For example, "I dislike violence, but I'd really like to cave that guy's face in!", or "I'm no racist, but jews should just go away."

I don't see how bashing a guy's face in means you can't dislike violence. There are two completely different things there: Kicking somebody's ass, and enjoying violence. They're separate from each other. You can be the calmest, least-violent person on this planet and still want to beat somebody up if they do something that annoys you enough. It seems like you are mixing the whole thing up with beating somebody up just for the sake of violence.

Same goes with "I'm no racist, but jews should just go away". If I dislike something jews do, that doesn't mean I hate them just cause they're jews. If I dislike something about them/they do so much that I think it would be beneficial and worth it to just wipe them all away, that doesn't mean I'm racist. It's like if I had bread that had mold on it, and decided it's better to just throw it all away, and then somebody started telling me "You threw it away cause you don't like bread! You breadcist!".

It depends on why someone would say that jews should go away. Scratcher just made a really basic example.

Although, I'm really not sure if Jews are even a race. I don't even know what makes someone a Jew. It's way too complicated and ducked up.

Saying that you'd like to bash someone's face in implies you'd take pleasure in doing so. It's just a hypocritical, weasely thing to say. Instead of trying to cotton your violent urges by asserting that you generally don't behave like that, just say "I'd really like to cave that guy's face in!".

If I dislike something jews do, that doesn't mean I hate them just cause they're jews. If I dislike something about them/they do so much that I think it would be beneficial and worth it to just wipe them all away, that doesn't mean I'm racist.

That's totally racist. No one dislikes a certain race just because they're a certain race. Any racist will have tons of reasons; they're inferior beings, they breed like vermin, they eat babies, whatever.

It's like if I had bread that had mold on it, and decided it's better to just throw it all away, and then somebody started telling me "You threw it away cause you don't like bread! You breadcist!".

It's more like liking white bread, but hating black bread because black bread tastes like crap. Absolute breadcist, man. If you hated ALL bread, though, that would be more like... foodtypeist.

Saying that you'd like to bash someone's face in implies you'd take pleasure in doing so. It's just a hypocritical, weasely thing to say. Instead of trying to cotton your violent urges by asserting that you generally don't behave like that, just say "I'd really like to cave that guy's face in!".

So, if some kid who's never been violent in his life gets attacked by a guy with a knife, and the only way to defend himself is to bash that guy's face in, I bet you he'd really like to take that option. So according to you, because he'd like to bash this guy's face in so he'd get to live himself, now means that he can't hate violence. Makes sense, bro.

That's totally racist. No one dislikes a certain race just because they're a certain race. Any racist will have tons of reasons; they're inferior beings, they breed like vermin, they eat babies, whatever.

"Racist" is such an annoying word that gets thrown around everywhere. People just don't like the way certain people do things. That's not being racist. That's just DISAGREEING with their ways. If I disagree with their ways enough that I think their entire race should be wiped out, then so be it. Racism is exactly what you mentioned first there: thinking some other race is inferior. That's racism. Disliking a race because they breed like vermin or eat babies isn't racism at all. Those are very valid reasons for disagreeing with how some race of people might act. If a person of my own race would eat babies, and I'd accept it, that'd be racism. But if I judged that person, and blamed the other race for possibly influencing him to eat babies, that wouldn't be.

So, if some kid who's never been violent in his life gets attacked by a guy with a knife, and the only way to defend himself is to bash that guy's face in, I bet you he'd really like to take that option. So according to you, because he'd like to bash this guy's face in so he'd get to live himself, now means that he can't hate violence. Makes sense, bro.

That's a totally different situation. Any sane person would defend themselves when attacked, regardless of what they think about violence. Although if the kid claimed he's a complete pacifist before braining the attacker, he shouldn't do that anymore afterward. A true pacifist would just turn the other cheek, bitch.

But what if the kid wasn't actually attacked on the street, but he's just fantasizing about it on the internet? "I dislike violence, but if someone attacked me with a knife, I would DUCKING bash their FACE in! RAAAGH!" If you phrase a sentence like that, the but does totally negate the 'I dislike violence' in the beginning. Kid sounds like a complete maniac. "I dislike violence, but if someone attacked me, I would defend myself" wouldn't, though. So it's not like some sort of grammar rule, just an annoying insincere thing people often do in their sentences. Like, their actual emotions shine through what they're saying, but they add a contrary statement in the beginning just for the sake of keeping up appearances.

People just don't like the way certain people do things. That's not being racist. That's just DISAGREEING with their ways. If I disagree with their ways enough that I think their entire race should be wiped out, then so be it.

Here's my definition of racism: Discrimination towards people based on their race.

So if I'm hiring, and I dismiss a black applicant because all black people are lazy, I'm being racist. If the applicant is a DnD Dark Elf, and I dismiss him because all Dark Elves are evil murderous psychopaths, I'm being racist. (Even if most of them are - this particular one could be Drizzt, who knows. Although I wouldn't hire Drizzt either. Smug dark elven Mary Sue ducker!)

Lumping all black people together as 'them', and disliking the whole race for 'their ways' is a textbook example of racism.

Your definition seems to be 'hating another race for no reason.' But if that is what racism is, then there are NO racists at all. Everyone has, from their own point of view, perfectly valid reasons for hating other races. (Even if the reasons are actually absurd and obviously false, like jews eating babies.)

If the applicant is a DnD Dark Elf, and I dismiss him because all Dark Elves are evil murderous psychopaths, I'm being racist.

Come on, that's a million times different. In the monster manual, it literally lists a race's alignment. I'm a lazy country music sensation, so I'm not going to look up what alignment a dark elf is, but I've heard that orcs are chaotic evil. Who would want to hire a D&D race if you'll know for sure how they'll act?

Sure, it depends on how you portray them or play as a race, but it still lists their alignment as absolute. They could be total douches all around.

Ken Ham is still alive.

Skurn can you go the the Creationism "museum" torch the place down eliminate ken ham.

Wut

They could be total douches all around.

They could, but it's still racism. You're not necessarily being unjustified or wrong or evil (or whatever negative connotations are usually associated with the word) by refusing to hire Orcs, but you're definitely being racist.

Again, it really depends on how the campaign is built or if say, a PC wants to play an orc who is struggling under the heat of so much hate, but that doesn't really change that they're orcs and at their basest form, they are chaotic evil.

You could even just not want to associate with an evil character because you're a paladin and it'll screw with your own character. It's not really being racist if you're just worried about your paladin abilities.

Although, paladins are some A-class rod-up-the-ass racist dinks and I don't think you can really play as a paladin that isn't unless you want to fall and become a Blackguard.

Here's my definition of racism: Discrimination towards people based on their race.

Racism: Discriminating a race based on things they can't help, such as a black person for being black.

Not racism: Discriminating a race based on things they can help, such as a black person speaking like a retard who never learned their language properly. Judging them because of this isn't racism, it's just being annoyed by dumb speech. What it might be is generalization, but if 3/4 of black people talk like that, then I might find it worth ridding this world of all black people, because I find their speech annoying. And that doesn't make me a racist, it just means I hate that speech so much that I'm willing to sacrifice that 1/4 of blacks who speak like normal people, for the sake of my ears.

As far as the other argument goes, you really seem to be mixing the "bashing somebody's face in" and the violence part together, when they're completely unrelated from one another. It's like if someone said they don't like sex, but still wanna have biological children, and you came and claimed they must like sex because it's the only possible way to have biological children. Same with the beating somebody's face in thing. Unfortunately, beating somebody's face in requires violence, but that doesn't mean you enjoy the violence.

That's an odd definition of racism, Skull.

That said, racism is sometimes hard to define. There's also shades of racism, for example the difference between hating someone because of their race and generalising because of race.

Sometimes it's just a fact that certain races behave in certain ways, or at least enough of them do to give a general impression to others.

For example, I've always thought it odd that after some black kid is killed by the police in America, there's riots where people generally smash up the place, rob shops and so on... Seriously! Why?! Can't they see this just harms their own image and makes it more likely that black teenagers are going to get shot by police if the usual impression of them is of low-life criminals and gang members? It's certainly far from the truth.
There's other examples, both good and bad.

It's not only races anyway. I cycle a lot on the roads and have noticed that virtually all BMW drivers are rude, arrogant and by far the most likely to barge me out of the way. It has got to the point where if I hear a car speeding up behind me to overtake while going through a small gap, I think to myself "bet it's a BMW" (or an Audi, same thing ) and I'm right 90% of the time.

Think I digressed somewhere.

In summary, my point is, um, not sure.
There's racism and then there's racism, none of it good but some of it worse. Hardly anyone is without any bias towards certain groups, does this make them racist?

I say just think of people as people. All races have their good and bad folk, and each person should be judged individually based on their own merits and vices. If more people thought like that, then I think war would be a much less popular thing...

I say just think of people as people. All races have their good and bad folk, and each person should be judged individually based on their own merits and vices. If more people thought like that, then I think war would be a much less popular thing...

People as people, races as races. But if the majory of a race acts a certain way, that does define the race, and therefore gives me a right to judge that race based on those actions, without making me a racist. If 90% of a race are dead and 10% are alive, that makes the 10% an exception, but doesn't mean the race is any less endangered.

How does that define the entire race?

I like turtles

USA is a religious country - fabulous marriage is legal in 36 state. Australia is a secular country - fabulous marriage is legal in 0 states... all makes sense, right? Atheists are always so full of brilliants.

US- Secular in its form of government,Religious in its population

UK- Religious in its form of government(Just like the Vatican both the UK and the Vatican suck AND ISREAL,DEFINATELY ISREAL) Somewhat secular it its population.

Just a note Italy and the Vatican are technically separate countries I did not say Italy sucks,Italy sounds like ok country

Yeah, but you're only allowed in Italy if you have a mustache and can make spaghetti that is at least above the average the rest of the world can make.