Truly activates one's prefrontal cortex

They are defectives, brother. We're it not for moder medicine and technology (incidentally almost all invented by white men) these beta cuck race traitors woulda died out a long time ago or at least been on the bottom of society. Change is coming someday.

liberalism these days is suicidal smugness, and social media circle jerking

so is the skittle analogy supposed to be
>would you let a bunch of refugees/illegals/whatever into your country if you knew 3 of them were murdering rapists?

I know, right? What the fuck is the solution to literal suicidal idiots like this? There's suicide bombers which cause some temporary property damage, and then there's suicide leftists that cause literal generations worth of damage.

>Why is my life worth more than theirs?

It isn't, trust me. But this question begins with a false premise, that if we don't let these people into our country unconditionally then they'll just die. I swear, this mentality will be the death of the west.

how come when it comes to animals we go to extreme lengths to preserve their habitat and culture
but when it comes to people we just don't care?

It's because white people have no culture of course, goy!

I would burn a thousand Syrian children to save the life of my own child.
Any Syrian parent would burn a thousand American children to save the life of their own child.
This is why we have to deal with things pragmatically rather than idealistically.
I don't care if liberal fuckface wants to eat drums full of poisoned skittles but if he tried to hand a random skittle to my child I would smack it out of his hand and slit his fucking throat

Yes, it's about poorly screening people and just letting them in because they say they're in trouble

No sane human would sacrifice their own life for that of any number of complete strangers.

>Liberals
>Sane
Pick 1

No.
It makes me see it's face books, and a leafy tard.
Have you ever, in your fucking worthless life, had an opinion that wasn't fed to you by media or the internet?

>The refugee problem is not a race issue

From other user:
>One white life is worth more than a thousand rapefugee shitskins.

This is what pisses me off about Cred Forums you hide behind "Islam is not a race" or "refugees are not a race" or "Mexicans are not a race" but yet you clearly oppose those things because of race.

>Cred Forums is one person
if I kill myself, will you die too? It might be worth it

Society promotes this type of virtue-signaling. Most liberals who say stuff like this wouldn't actually risk their own lives, but since it's hypothetical, they lose nothing by pretending they would and get pats on the back in social media for "being brave."

Liberals care a lot about niggers and their dumb stone age cultures

Liberals don't care at all about white people

It's basically similar to how the British empire made sure to prevent some nigger tribe in south africa from starving to death because they killed all their cattle believing that it would summon ghosts of their ancestors who would kill all the whites but they were fine with letting a million irish starve to death

White people are suffering? Lolwhocares. Niggers did something stupid, or white liberals/corporations created some horrible problem killing off niggers? This is the worst thing ever and needs to be fixed.

It's xenophilia taken to such an extreme they become oikophobic (oikophobic=self-hating/hatred of one's own kind)

...

God what a horrible thing to say. #yesallwomyn

I get all my opinions from Huffington Post. The most unbiased and trustworthy new organization on the planet.

To be fair, the skittle analogy was stupid. I didn't defend when feminist used it for men being rapists, and I won't defend it now.

>is my life more important than thousands upon thousands
You only have one, how is that a question?

skittle analogy was stupid because it called them 'monsters'
if they said rapist and put it at 1-2%, they'd be right.

Women who openly ignore dangers are retarded and deserve to be blamed for being dumb.

good arguments can be made for and against flooding a nation with refugees. but using a bowl of candy isn't how you do it.

my life is much more important than their lives because its mine and they feel the same way people like this are just what we like to call marks.

>thats why we have dumbasses like this go die for us

topheh

It's an unhealthy obsession with being "empathetic". It really is a disease of the mind.

Very few analogies ever hold up to scrutiny. They do nothing but shit up the discourse.

my life is more important than theirs because my ancestors were better than theirs

I thought liberals love science? Do they hate evolution now?

>Let me destroy my culture, my nation, for a bunch of strangers because my Neo-Con piece of shit government turned them into Refugees.

How about we pull out of Syria?

It seems to be like she's eating handfuls of skittles every day. Well we're talking about a bowl, nothing really specified but a general sized bowl, maybe one you'd eat a bag of popcorn out of.

She'd be dead definitely within two weeks would be my guess, even if the bowl was refilled every day and the poison skittle changed places.

Literally if me, or any sane fucking person was presented with a bowl full of skittles with the chance of a few poisoned ones, they would deny it, even if someone said "we'll save 100 people if you do it", they still wouldn't do it.

Maybe the skittles analogy is in bad taste but come on man, hypothetical question being ignored because you're too afraid you'll agree with me.

We don't oppose them because of race, it's just that race happens to be a common factor most often. This is the single point that liberals refuse to see as true - they will plug their ears and scream about how we are all one race no matter how many crime statistics or IQ bell curves you point to. The bottom line is that it isn't a good idea to let Syrian (or pretty much any muslim) refugees into our country. It isn't because they're brown, it isn't because they smell bad (though they do), it's because of the negative effect it would have on our country. I could go into a lot more depth on this, but for an easy example just look at Germany and Sweden.

When you import third world people you import third world problems - increased rape, increased sexual assaults, increased terrorist incidents, support of sharia law, etc.

Would you say that the New York Times is a liberal newspaper? I think that most people here would say that yes even thought The New York Timea is made of a lot of journalist. The same way that Cred Forums is at its core a racists board.

The problem is that all this stems from people who were too empathetic even to their in-group, if working class white men were never given the vote then there would never have been things like FDR and socialism enabling niggers to vote. If you help your in-group's weakest members they'll tend to empathize with out groups and then out groups will empathize with outer groups and the entire thing will become a clusterfuck.

These liberals are also the types who become suddenly conservative when the people who lived in shitholestan are transplanted to their neighborhood to rob them

Those things literally aren't races and you're a retard

Disliking the races of the people who make up those groups doesn't change the fact that our primary reason to hate them comes from the fact that they're fucking monkeys

I dislike Asians because they aren't white but I don't bitch about them because Asians mostly do their work and don't ruin things for us

in this skittle analogy, isnt the skittle-eater's body representative of the entire country, though? so them willing to "sacrifice their life" is actually them willing to sacrifice the country. fucking liberals, man.

islam is a religion not a race
pol is many people not one person
you should have a leaf flag for being such a stupid fuck

Alternatively, you could say
>Let me destroy my culture and national identity for a bunch of strangers because my hyper liberal government is worried that they will be called racist by 10 people for not being total cucks.

Hmm clearly not understanding that the metaphor was that the person eating the skittles was the entire country, and that you risk the safety of the entire country AND the skittles you are trying to save, by getting poisoned

at our core, humans are racist you dip
we even perceive the pain of other races differently

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/

we're tribal animals
we
are
animals

Probably

>inb4 liberals get super religious again like when bill clinton became a baptist lol

Not eating the skittles doesn't mean a person dies, just that there are candy dissolving in _your_ digestional track that might kill you

dumb fucks

liberal's endgame could never be science as it's quite clear science is heading towards eugenics
eugenics was celebrated by the entire west before WW2

remember, eugenics is only okay when you're trying to make a crop more disease resistant or create a better working dog :^)

nah they are poisoned with anthrax
>they radicalize nearby skittles.

It isn't racist to hate shitskins for being fucking criminals, and it isn't racist to not want to be replaced by shitskin criminals demographically. End of story.

The only way it would be racist is if we hated and wanted to kill shitskins over in shitskinistan busy killing one another and leaving us alone just because we feel superior to them and want them to be dead on that basis.

Plot twist: three of them will kill not only you but your family and friends

Fucking googs
>HAH WE DUN GOT DEM EVUL FROG NATZIS AGAN, ANOTHER MEEEMS RUINED

fucking THIS.

Lel was going to post this.

Trump Jr's Skittles thing is the same as this pic that feminists used to post a lot.

If Trump Jr. did this intentionally it's a pretty brilliant move. Take a concept approved by them "here is a bow of candy, some are poisoned, would you take a handful? Now imagine the poisoned ones as this particular group of people" and applied it to a scenario they would reject (refugees).

wtf i love poisoned skittles now

I cannot even begin to imagine the disconnect, the liberals are the main targets of the muslims for their degeneracy.

>that and the whole liberals see them screaming about beheading infidels and think "thats definently not me!" as they decide to get more body modified horns on their head.

>I'm willing to let myself and everyone I know and love die, to save someone who I don't know and will never meet, from a problem I didn't create and cannot fix, because I am such a good person.
Pathological altruism is insanity.

>I would give my life for life of people that want to destroy my country kill my family and rape our woman

Why are white people so fucking selfhating and believe that they somehow have to be "the good" in this world?

>blah blah is your life more important than blah blah

Why do liberals have such a shit fit if I believe my own life and the lives of my countrymen are more important to me than some fucks living out in the desert millions of miles away?

Their situation sucks? Oh well, they can move to the country next door that isn't in conflict, one that accommodates their culture and religion far better than any western country can. Yeah they won't get the luxuries, but they will get their everyday needs and ultimately safety, and that should be enough for them, since they are only seeking safety, right??

bosnick is a jewish surname

that poison skittle doesn't just kill you. It kill all those around you if it can

>We don't oppose them because of race.

You don't think there is a bias coming from a person (I know it probably wasn't you) who says:
>One white life is worth more than a thousand rapefugee shitskins
?

That's equivalent to a SJW who says that she is into body acceptance because it is good and the fact that she is 400lbs has nothing to do with it.

I didn't understand that the left were literally in a cuck cult until they started posting about this meme.

I've seen countless people proclaiming that we should just bring in refugees even if there were surely be terrorists within the refugees. They have openly said that they don't mind fellow Americans being murdered, and that it is worth bringing in refugees.

This is what we are dealing with in this country. People who are in a cuck death cult. Progressive politics has turned into Jonestown.

>The problem is that all this stems from people who were too empathetic even to their in-group, if working class white men were never given the vote then there would never have been things like FDR and socialism enabling niggers to vote.
This is practically nonsensical. The rich must help the poor just as the poor help to support the rich. Their out-group empathy of the poor won't develop if their is no reason to believe they have a common cause with those in the out-group. Caring for the poor and downtrodden should be a major priority of any nation.

And FDR was a great president.

you sound like a skype or possibly a google

Funny you should say this.

dailywire.com/news/9308/londons-muslim-mayor-terror-attacks-part-and-michael-qazvini#

>I know it probably wasn't you
I know you're new, but there are ID's on Cred Forums, to prevent samefagging. They change between threads, though, so it's not like a permanent trip.

>You don't think there is a bias coming from a person (I know it probably wasn't you) who says:
>>One white life is worth more than a thousand rapefugee shitskins
Certainly coming from that person it sounds like they consider the lives of their countrymen more important than the lives of foreigners. But again, you're assuming that "Cred Forums is one person". It's like CNN saying that Pepe is a white nationalist symbol. Certainly some people see the refugee crisis as a racial issue, but it would be grossly incorrect to then make the conclusion that "the only reason one would have to oppose refugees is because they're racist."

UK needs to take their pop rocks and go home

Base nippon,

Honestly I would burn thousand Syrian children for nothing in exchange.

Yeah we just need a civil war already.

>>One white life is worth more than a thousand rapefugee shitskins
I'd choose slaughtering every single swede over killing my sikh neighbors down the road you racist fuck

You have this backwards. A liberal's sense of self-preservation is overwhelming because they place enormous and undeserved value on their own life. It's basically a form of the "Genius Underachiever" complex. They just speak this way because they also desperately crave external validation and need everyone else to know how good of a person they are.

Notice that when someone argues the point in the OP, they accept that people in this country are going to die because of it. In other words, they are willing to trade American lives for the feelings of immigrants. But notice how they never mention themselves or think they will personally be affected. So by no means are they willing to give their own life so that most refugees can have a better life; they are only willing to give away your life, or your neighbors, or some other American who probably wasn't using it right anyway.

The way you argue against this is by saying, look, what we are really trying to determine is how many American lives each refugee is worth. Ask them how many deaths are acceptable per 10,000 refugees accepted. Or 100,000. 500,000? And then ask them if it were possible to in some way volunteer their own life so that a few refugees could move here, would they still have the same position. Of course they won't. Because they're only willing to give away your life.

>Disliking the races of the people who make up those groups doesn't change the fact that our primary reason to hate them comes from the fact that we dislike tha races of the people that make up those groups.

Ok . . .

>the globalist usurper who directly caused WWII, killing 50 million people, and tried to make himself the lifetime dictator of the USA
>a great president
excuse me I have to go sharpen something

that makes if it wasn't a metaphor but a legit question of bringing in refugees but how will eaten skittles become posionous? or get in harms way?

>IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS

Anyone have facebook? Suggest to him that he sell his kidney and send the $ to refugee charity.

Cred Forums with match the $ if he actually follows through.

People fail to understand what the point of that move was. It wasn't to block refugees from getting in.
The skittles argument is used all the time by libs. By throwing it at them: they will tear it apart themselves, making it unusable by them afterwards. As they don't listen when we make these arguments against their shitty analogies, forcing them to argue their own analogies is trying to overdrive their brain on cognitive dissonance so they finally wake up.

the googles and poprocks poisoned them

Based Japan.

>pol is many people not one person.

Ok then, would you say that a life in Syria is as important as a white life in North America?

Just trying to see if in fact Cred Forums doesn't share the same racist ideas in general.

>Ok then, would you say that a life in Syria is as important as a white life in North America?
depends
do you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest?

>Cred Forums will match the $

let me guess, we're going to steal his other kidney and sell it too, right?

Yes, and we are supposed to be above our animalistic behavior. We are supposed to be above racism, rape, crime, murder, etc. at least you admit that you are a racist tho. Hardly anyone here admits that.

>id do it in a heartbeat
than fucking go to syria and kill all the terrorists if you're so fucking brave.

>animals are supposed to be above animalistic behavior
only liberals could be this self righteous
at least conservatives admit their animalistic behavior and blame it on being imperfect creates of their god

>It isn't racist to hate shitskins for being fucking criminals

Are you implying that all "shitskins" are criminals?

>im dead but at least i have the moral high ground

Atheists sometimes say that religion helps hide the symptoms of mental illness, now Liberalism has taken the reins. Publicly displaying suicidal ideation is now okay along as it's couched in Liberal idiocy.

>the globalist usurper who directly caused WWII
Because FDR decided to Invade Poland, right?

I will give you that it is unfortunate that Japan was thrust into American consumer-nihilism afterwards.

>Because FDR decided to Invade Poland, right?

There is more truth to this than you realize

they dont hate the terrorists they hate the ebil gubbinment

You're not listening to me. Intentionally I suspect, because I've disproven the only argument you hold, which is that people don't want refugees because they're racist. I'll repeat - racism is not the reason people don't want refugees. Please read again.

People can bitch and moan all fucking day.

But that right there is the christian thing to do.

Would jesus take refugees today if he walked among us?
Yes.

Would he be crucified for it, yup.

>liberalism has replaced religion
>time for us to meme "liberalism is the opiate of the masses"

daily reminder jesus was a jew

>Would jesus take refugees today if he walked among us?
>Yes
Prove it. Checkmate faggot.

Also, not an argument.

Lol, no he wouldn't.

Please elaborate? Did he also invade Ethiopia and China? Did he support Franco in the Spanish Civil War too?

I need to know.

These people have been in charge of themselves for decades, and they've done a shit job at running their countries, so oh look they're suffering untold privations. Isn't this white people's fault because of colonialism, much like slavery and racism is the reason for blacks' failure in America?

Unfortunately, similarly backwards nigger-tier civilizations which suddenly found themselves in postcolonial control of their countries have essentially landed on their feet. Latin America and Southeast Asia have had their ups and downs but are essentially functioning Civilization. Africa, on the other hand, is characterized by anarchic warlordism everywhere that wasn't colonized by Meds or Germanics.

I wrote all that and then realized that I got pretty off topic talking about nigger inferiority, but I'm gonna share it anyway because I like posting.

yes, but
What would Thor have done?

The reason why I said "probably not you" was because I cannot say that you have not made such a statement somewhere else.

>Certainly coming from that person it sounds like they consider the lives of their countrymen more important than the lives of foreigners.

No, because he wasnt referring to nationality, he was referring to the color of their skin. Nice try tho.

>it would be grossly incorrect to then make the conclusion that "the only reason one would have to oppose refugees is because they're racist."

And when the FUCK did I made such a statement?

Read the bible.

He time and time again taught to help the needy, the helpless, to turn the other cheek, to aid and help those in sin to repent.

Not an arguement for what?
I am simply stating if you are a christian, you are supposed to support helping everybody. Constantly. Yes that includes the undesirable syrian and other refugees.

This is the perspective of a man without children.

This guy, he wouldn't do shit. He could go to Iraq or Syria right now and help people but he just sits on his ass like every other libcuck. It's just virtue signalling.

We can help them without sacrificing our nations and cultures.

Can save him some time just give him one poison skittle, save the rest for his friends and family fucking fag

Make your point or gtfo

>we will help them
>until its inconvenient to us

Again, not jesus' teachings.

One of the reasons he was killed was because he was stirring the pot socially.

I wasn't trying to trick you when I said countrymen.

>When the fuck did I make such a statement?
In this post (), and you've insinuated it in the rest of your posts.

>If you are a christian you are supposed to support helping everybody
Why don't you help your neighbor rape your wife then? Why don't you help the bank robber get the money into the bag? What's that? You shouldn't help everybody all the time? There are ways to help people without fucking your country up? I thought you were a christian, user?

Excellent argument except for one thing:

It supposes that you, an American, will still maintain your current lifestyle while dealing with an influx of non-taxpaying hobos that do not speak you language, do not share your values, and are sponsored by a government that will not enforce them to integrate into their new communities.

I fucking hate Skittles and I do not welcome migrants at all. I will help immigrants hand-over-fist, because they worked for the right to become an American, jumping throw all the hoops in front of them. Migrants are getting a free pass.

Fuck that shit.

>would Jesus have taken refugees in

Yeah, of course a jew would be pro-refugee

Cred Forums does not believe in race
Wew lad

Jesus never taught to rape or steal

Try harder.

According to liberals, the Christian and Islamic God are one in the same therefore they are safe in a Muslim nation are they not?
Will the Christian God not protect them there?

>you're a monster if you say no and the skittles represent refugees/minorities/whatever

>if the skittles represent men in general you have to say no because otherwise you'll get murdered/raped/raped+murdered

k

Oh yeah? Evidently these guys didn't get the memo.

cbsnews.com/news/germany-rattled-by-new-years-eve-sex-assaults-by-arab-men/

They are safe in the sense that they will go to the heavens (according to your liberals' theory)

But that doesnt mean on this life you dont help them survive these terrible times

Why can't we just not eat the skittles? Can we just place them away from the war until it's over?

Also way to fucking completely miss the point of my post. I'm going to stop responding if you make a response to that effect again because it will be clear to me that either you are baiting or you are incapable of having a rational discussion.

This is satire right?

Really made me stink....

That is not my issue, for God will take care of them in the next life.

I bet you don't go to the store and just eat whatever you want without paying, or have sex with your coworkers in public, or smell your relative's assholes, but yet you want to pick this one characteristic of animals thats's convenient for you

>at least conservatives admit their animalistic behavior and blame it on being imperfect creates of their god

That's a strawman, when the fuck did I deny that we don't have those urges (to be racists, to rape someone, to kill someone)? I said we have those urges but we have to be above them you fucking idiot.

Oh right, every refugee is a rapist.

I forgot Cred Forums tends to generalize when it fits their narrative.

want me to google christian led violence articles? Like say, this guy?

3rd world countries have criminals, no surprise there, that doesnt mean you turn away good families who simply want the fuck out, need the fuck out of a warzone they have absolutely nothing to do with. At minimum women and children.

none of the things you listed are subconscious

FUCKING LEAF GO AWAY

Your "point" was a fallacy

In that analogy, they're only responsible for themselves.

In reality, the skittle isn't consumed, and can fuck other things up.

some fucking google on fb posted this UNIRONICALLY AND IW ANTED TO STRANGLE HIM
why do people think dying is better than being mean to some people? fucking hate everyone.

Yeah naw fuck off, there is half a dozen Muslim countries they can go to

take a class on statistics

>one Jewish life is worth more than a thousand stupid goyim

don't be like the kikes, man. don't compare white value to muzzie value. Just hold fast in your resolve that you won't risk your safety and your homeland for people who hate you and want you dead.

If push came to shove he wouldnt eat a single one. Just a cuck virtue signaling like a boss for internet points

>We have to be above them
Why? The desire to eat and other natural bodily functions are "natural desires". I'm not saying that it's okay to take a shit in public, but it would also be incorrect to say "you can never take a shit" in the same way that it would be incorrect to say "you should never be racist". If I see a black person approaching me I will not relax around them in the same way that I would a white person. I'm not saying in every scenario racism is okay, but it's also not correct to say that it's never okay.

That is your issue, for god instructed you in the bible to help your fellow brothers and sisters in need. They are his children also.

Then dont claim america is a christian nation, or call yourself a christian.

You are clearly a hypocrite

>". I'm not saying that it's okay to take a shit in public, but it would also be incorrect to say "you can never take a shit" in the same way that it would be incorrect to say "you should never be racist".
this

>I've disproven the only argument you hold, which is that people don't want refugees because they're racist

That was never my argument. I never said the only reason people are against refugees is because they are racists. stop arguing with me in your own mind and misrepresenting my argument.

I can tell you are used to arguing with liberals (I'm not one mind you) in your own mind.

ASIAN
MASTER
RACE

Sure, go ahead, look up some christian violence. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's far far less common than Islamic violence. I made this point in the first post I made in this thread and it seems to be holding true, lefties simply cannot comprehend statistical analysis.

>that doesnt mean you turn away good families who simply want the fuck out
Why would we accept them in the first place? What obligation does the United States have to accept third worlders into our borders?

>implying christianity isn't a virus that needs to be destroyed
there is only one true god

Statistics dont matter to jesus teachings.

Turn the other cheek, help everyone in need.

Oh a terrorist? Help him repent.

That isnt my teachings or ideas, those are jesus teachings.

He was crucified next to a thieve, forgave him.

Then what is your argument? From the very first post you made in this thread you said "you clearly oppose those things because of race." So what is it? Do you agree that there are legitimate reasons to oppose the acceptance of third worlders into our borders?

>thefrogman
What did they mean by this?

Lol he would not kill himself to bring a refugee over. The only reason he wants refugees is because he doesn't have to live near poor people.

Why? Because we are supposed to be a christian nation, and we have the resources to help them.

Not even mentioning the fact that we have been distabilizing the area in order to gain world domination for decades.

> those other skittles are going to die
Right, hundreds of thousands of people/would-be-refugees are dying yearly due to the war. Protip, they're not fucking dying or in danger they're coming for entitlements

...

You could easily spend your life working for charity and saving people right now. Does every dollar you make go to feed the starving children in Africa or to buy bednets to stop malaria?

No? Because you'd rather go to a movie than help pay for clean drinking water, or enjoy a nice dinner out instead of feeding a starving child.

There are opportunities right now that definitely exist for real where you could save lives by giving your own time and energy. You don't. Even if you give to charity, unless you are giving literally everything you have, you are passing up on those chances.

So don't lie and say you'd gorge yourself on skittles. There's a fucking bowl-full right in front of you this instant and you've only had one. You can dig in, motherfucker or you can shut the fuck up, but don't tell me I need to eat some because you'd eat them all if only there were skittles.

>Help everyone in need
What about the million or more unemployed Americans? What about the millions starving in Africa? Are you saying we have an obligation to help them all? Should the US open our borders to anyone who wants to come in?

...

The answer IS yes. Your life is the only one that matters because it's the only thing you will ever experience and once it's over there's nothing more for you.

What part of everybody did you not understand? Was the bible really that unclear? Pretty clear to me.

>virtue signaling at the expense of society
these people are traitors, plain and simple

Not even that. I think everyone would say "my life is worth more than yours"

At least so much as to not go out of my way to put it at risk. Like if I do absolutely nothing to help refugees, my life is in a better place than if I try to help them.

Mohammed did.

>what kind of person would think blah blah blah.

A K selected person.

That wasn't my argument, it was that user's argument.

>and you've insinuated it in the rest of your posts.

Quote me then.

>Why? Because we are supposed to be a christian nation, and we have the resources to help them.
Wrong!

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

> 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Catholics have a moral authority to protect America from foreign invaders.

>moral authority
duty*

Where did the bible say to help everybody?

I know it set up a bunch of laws about who to punish and how, but where does it say you have to help everybody?

>can't understand what a quote is
Wew lad

Well then it's clear to me that you have no actual concern over the success of our nation or even of the people you claim to support at all, only an interest in virtue signaling and taking the moral holy ground. An open borders policy would be suicide, domestically and economically. If you can't understand that then there's no point in arguing any further with you. If you do understand that, then you understand that a crippled U.S. would be WORSE for everyone you claim to support.

Please respond to , very specifically the parts that say
>Then what is your argument?
and
>Do you agree that there are legitimate reasons to oppose the acceptance of third worlders into our borders?

Save the world, to the detriment of our culture, safety and economic prowess, because Jesus said so.

Kden.

>Majority of refugees are young men
>MUH WOMEN & CHILDREN

Everytime

>catholics

Not many catholics have ran the country, its not even the leading christian branch in america.

So, cool story catholics, they dont speak for america. Jesus does. And his book.

Doesn't change that fact that you intentionally misrepresented my argument.

Maybe if we stop mindlessly shoving handfuls of skittles into our mouths and giving the skittles a place to run and hide, they could get their shit together and fix their country so they wouldn't NEED to be eaten.

> pol is a racist board
I'm baffled by this weightless word, because something is "racist" has zero effect as to whether or not it's true

>its not even the leading christian branch in america.
Might want to check again.
ncccusa.org/news/120209yearbook2012.html

Top 25 U.S. churches reported in the 2012 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches:

The Catholic Church 68,202,492, ranked 1 [ranked 1 in 2011], down 0.44 percent.

Southern Baptist Convention 16,136,044, ranked 2 [ranked 2 in 2011], down 0.15 percent.

The United Methodist Church 7,679,850, ranked 3 [ranked 3 in 2011], down 1.22 percent.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 6,157,238, ranked 4 [ranked 4 in 2011], up 1.62 percent.

openbible.info/topics/helping_those_in_need

Anyone in need.

>Why yes, I would gladly let others die so I can feel good about myself.

Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination. Not all Protestant denominations are the same, biblefag.

America has long steered away from christian values, if you cant see that then my point is pointless.

Not just america, the west in general abandoned true christian values a long time ago.

If you eat too many skittles you'll get diabetes and die

What does that have to do with the point that I made or the argument at hand?

>>America has long steered away from christian values
The fact that it's referred to "juedo-christian" values should be telling enough.
The reason Islam is so barbaric is because it's based directly on the old testament. If Jews had as many members they'd be doing equally dumb shit.

What about when you consider that many of the people 'making that sacrifice' did not consent to make it.

Your point is pointless in any form. You would kiss the feet of a Sandfrican-American while he plugs your wife's ass and anoints your head with cum. You are truly cucked, Elijah.

Respond to , and then to . Or are you the type to simply ignore arguments that you begin losing?

> because we are supposed ot be a christian nation

No we aren't. We are a secular government that happens to contain a lot of christians (but also a lot of other groups). The government is no affiliated with any religion. The first amendment to the constitution outlines freedom from religion (religion in government), and it's from there that freedom of religion for individuals is derived. Look at the actual wording. The US is not now, nor has it ever been a christian nation.

Let's stop calling them refugees. They're immigrants """"fleeing"""" from their countries even though Most of them are males between the ages of 18 and 35, able to fight. They won't fight because they're pussies and prefer getting free housing, food and scolarship from Europe.

By flooding our borders with people who come from a violent and backward culture we will eventually cease to exist as the unique state that we are. Why make the lives of the hundreds of millions of current Americans worse for the sake of a few foreigners? Where's your Christian compassion there? Why cant they stay in their own region and try to improve it? Why are we expexted to sacrifice the lives and futures of westerners for people who won't make sacrifices to improve their own countries/region? Liberals have this ridiculous version of Jesus in there head where he is just a super nice guy who happened to be God as well. That is not the case; Jesus was righteous and powerful, not some hippie pushover. Stop trying to tell me what my own religion stands for you fucking parasitic traitor. We've been at war with that cancerous ideology for hundreds of years and nothing will change that until Islam changes or the west rots.

The "success" of america is being meassured on non christian values. Capitalism in general is non compatible.

Christianity teaches sharing, caring, not profits and luxuries, pr militry power.

Yes, you are right, if america followed true christian values we would go broke 100%

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Mathew 19:24

>Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Ok, I beg you to give user all your money, your car, and direct access to your bank accounts.

They either fucked up their country or allowed it to become fucked. Either way, we don't need them. Let the Saudis take care of them.

That's partially misleading because christianity is only really violent in Uganda, but in Uganda, it's state sponsored violence (killing homosexuals and similar things), so it doesn't count here. Also, don't forget that christianity was incredibly violent a couple hundred years ago, and that islam is younger than christianity (plus it exists in countries with theocracies and not really secular governments, so it is more extreme and exports terrorists (like any religion would in the circumstance)).

There are more broke people than rich people, though, being broke is easy its the default state.

I give strangers all the time rides on my way to work, i share my paycheck by donating as much as i reasonably can. I also donate my time to building homes and serving food to te needy.
Its nowhere near what i could do but its a start.

>i would die for a better world
>writes from a safe space

Not sure how any of that is misleading but ok.

You've conceded the point that if America followed Christian values then we would go broke, so I assume you have also conceded the point that it is not always the best course of action to follow christian values, because I assume you don't want America to go broke.

If that is the case, then can you not also see that in this case it would be a bad idea to follow christian values and import third worlders into our country? If it's not the case please point out specifically where I made an error in logic or assumption.

Well I'm really happy that this person is such a kind charitable person and is personally housing refugees himself.

What? he's not? weird.

Yeah, but that's like saying there are more conservatives in the US than liberals because Fox news has the best ratings. Just because Catholics are bigger than any one protestant branch, doesn't mean that they are larger than protestantism (it isn't). Similarly Fox news is the only conservative news channel, whereas ABC, CNN, NBC, etc. all share the liberal market.

The thing that pisses me off about this analogy "epic comeback" is that this smug cuck has probably never seen a refugee or lived with vagrants his entire life.

His argument only holds water if he alone bears the responsibility for the bad refugees. I don't give a fuck if you'd rather kill yourself then be labeled as racist, but that never happens. He gets to virtue signal all he wants and then force some other schmuck to eat the Skittles because he's living in a rich white neighborhood far from the problems of reality.

The bible is so full of contradictions that there was never really one set list of christian values. Like any religion people just pick and chose the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't.

I have no problem with skittles but maybe we should let someone else eat the skittles since we can get better, less dangerous skittles from East Asia

I see that this thread has become too stressful for you and that you need to take a break. That's okay, happens to the best of us, maybe next time :^)

Because when the government is persecuting people on the basis of religion (as is done in Uganda) it doesn't count as terrorism (because it isn't really). Therefore, christian violence is under stated. Additionally, you fail to understand the reasons why islam is so violent nowadays (just like christianity was a couple hundred years ago). There's no real difference between the religions, they all inspire violence and get people killed.

That is not enough I beg you to give the rest away, people are starving and people will always starve, so you aren't doing enough for them until you are in a permanent state of starvation too.

THE SKITTLE FEARS THE SAMURAI

...

So we should let our countrymen be raped and murdered because maybe, just maybe, there's a 1/100,000,000 chance the refugee won't rape us to death?

Also this is the exact same metaphor they used for several years, but with men instead of Muslims. lmao.

>Just like christianity was a couple hundred years ago
Stop with this meme. If you're going to point to the crusades then you should know that they were a push back against hundreds of years of Muslim attacks against Europe.

>mfw when a couple hundred years ago it was French republicans doing mass beheadings

>it's also not correct to say that it's never okay (to be racist).

You are dealing with absolutes here. By that logic a murderer could argue that murder shouldn't even be a crime because "it's not correct to say that it's never ok to kill somebody" because what if someone is charging at you with a machete? In other words, he is using an exceptional scenario that has nothing to do with his case to bring murder into jeopardy.

Here in the real world racism breeds racism and stereotypes. You wanna tight your asshole when you see a black guy walking down the street, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to allow (say) the police use more force against black people because they are "statistically" more likely to commit crimes guess what's going to happen? You are going to make more black people part of the "crime statistic" in your little chart there and breed more criminals.

If america goes broke helping others, then so be it.

That is his will and that is what we need to do if we expect eternal salvation.

Again, not my ideas, his

It is not my fault we worship america over god as a nation

Your excuses for them are your own. If I have two dogs, one that's older and docile and one that's younger and aggressive and has bitten lots of people, I'm not just gonna throw my hands up and say, "well he's just a young pup. I don't care how many people he bites because it's not his fault, because he's young. He'll figure it out." No, I train the dog, and if he doesn't respond to training and keeps biting people, I put him down.

No, I'm pointing towards all of christian violence, the crusades are just the tip of the ice berg. I'm aware that muslims were also violent as fuck, that's my point. Both are a cancer on the world. Both breed insane amounts of violence.

Psshhh, doing some beheadings. Don't worry, christians were able to do all manner of violent things too.

Its not our responsibility to take care of the 3rd world.

>Because when the government is persecuting people on the basis of religion (as is done in Uganda) it doesn't count as terrorism (because it isn't really). Therefore, christian violence is under stated.
Wait, are you trying to claim that Uganda's state-sponsored religious violence outdoes all of the state-sponsored religious violence performed by Muslim nations? That's your argument?

Proof of more Christian violence than Muslim in present day or shut the fuck up with your apologist bullshit.

>a murderer could argue that murder shouldn't even be a crime because "it's not correct to say that it's never ok to kill somebody" because what if someone is charging at you with a machete?
This is literally correct - it's called self defense. If it wasn't a case of self defense, then it wasn't. If it was, then it was. Sometimes it is justified to kill people. Sometimes it is justified to be racist.

>if you are going to allow (say) the police use more force against black people because they are "statistically" more likely to commit crimes
Well, the thing is that using more force while arresting people doesn't lower crime (as far as I know), so I wouldn't make that suggestion. What I would suggest is increased policing in high-crime (read:black) neighborhoods.

This has been statistically proven to lower crime.

So there you go, "racism" in the real world is solving problems. I don't want you to get the idea that I hate black people or something (I am one, even though I know you won't believe me), I'm just saying that I hate the whole liberal "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mentality.

He has nothing to back up his claims, just "uh, that's misleading because it doesn't fit into my view of all religions being equally violent today. I swear some people just need to eat all the Skittles.

Christianity isn't docile. The only reason it isn't as violent as it used to be is because most of the countries where it exist are have secular governments. With islam that isn't the case. This allows the religion to become a lot more radical (like christianity was under kings who's governments were basically theocracies) and therefore violent. From there the religion begins to export radicals, and that's what we're dealing with now with islam. To my knowledge, there is only one country that is a christian country: Uganda. Luckily one doesn't do a whole hell of a lot. Almost the entire middle east and much of africa are filled with muslim theocracies. I never said it wasn't islam's fault - islam is a cancer on the world. I'm just telling you that christianity is a cancer too, and honestly not structurally different from islam.

Then I guess it's a good thing the US isn't a christian country.

He would also have jumpped feet first into their asses whenever they had sexual/religious emergencies, rather then chant religion of peace.

There you go folks, America has a moral duty to kill itself trying to help other people. Do you have a moral duty to kill yourself trying to help others? If you don't withdraw your entire bank account and donate it to the first homeless person you see on the street then you're a hypocrite.

>Both are a cancer on the world
>Both breed insane amounts of violence

Perhaps previously, although even then I would argue that religion has had a net positive effect on human society as a whole. But this argument can't be applied to the present day. Pointing to christian violence in the past is just smoke and mirrors when discussing modern-day policies.

Complete and total refutation incoming:

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

>Then what is your argument?

So you admit that you intentionally misrepresented my argument? Good

My argument from the beginning was this: if you are a racist that says that "a white life is worth a thousand of shitskins' lives", then your opposition to accepting refugees shouldn't be taken as unbiased"

>Do you agree that there are legitimate reasons to oppose the acceptance of third worlders into our borders?

Sure there are, but nothing that 100% prevents us from helping them.

US taxpaying citizens are worth much more and will not be sacrificed for those pieces of shit

>The only reason it isn't as violent as it used to be is because most of the countries where it exists have secular governments
False. Even if the US were to officially become a Christian country you would not have stonings of adulterers, cutting off hands of thieves and the hanging of gays from construction cranes. Christians don't follow the old testament.

>I'm just telling you that christianity is a cancer too
>Yeah guys islam is bad okay but don't you think christianity is just as bad too????

Dumb GooG

No, I wasn't admitting that I intentionally misrepresented your argument at all. I was asking the question because you continually asserted that I had misrepresented you (as you just did), but you never really asserted what your argument was in the first place. That way, whenever I tried to argue against any point you made, you could simply switch it around and say "yeah but that wasn't my argument". That's neither here nor there, however.

>if you are a racist that says that "a white life is worth a thousand of shitskins' lives", then your opposition to accepting refugees shouldn't be taken as unbiased
I agree with this. However, I think it would be wrong to do the typical leftist argument tactic and simply write that person off as "just a racist, no point in arguing with them". Whether or not they are a racist does not contribute or detract from their argument.

I do that. I am not rich by any means.

I donate every single extra dollar i have that doesnt go to food or shelter.

My wife does the same.

Nope, I'm just saying it gives you a misleadingly low number. Christianity doesn't just kill 300 people every year.

Have you ever used google before (or taken a history class?)? Witch hunts, the various inquisitions, catholic vs. protestant fighting over centuries (including several wars) that is analogous to sunni vs. shia violence, the conquistadors massacring natives (not even like in the US where most died of smallpox instead of violence), and then the crusades. This is just the surface, christianity has a massive history of violence just like islam. They're both cancerous.

Lol, unlike you I actually require evidence before I believe some shit about god impregnating some woman (who let's face it, probably just cheated on Joseph if she ever existed (no real historical evidence of the existence of Jesus and family)).

If something is racists then it is biased, which in my opinion is worst than being untrue.

And would you force your cuck lifestyle onto every other American? Why are their lives worth more than our own?

This is a stupid example.
A true example would
>Would you let everyone else eat them risking their lives just so you can feel better about yourself ?
For some reasons it goes over these people's head that terrorism is a threat to everyone and they're not just putting themselves at risk.

I cant force anyone into anything.

If you go back to my original comment all i saod was, taking in refugees and helping them is the christian thing to do. That is all.

Great watch.
Yeah, no kidding or irony, this was a great watch, about a somewhat complicated topic. But the presentation, is on point, that even googles would get it.

You're still referencing the past and making a comparison for present day. It doesn't work and your argument holds no water for dealing with current issues.

You say Christianity isn't docile and then give reasons as to why it is. Either it is or it isn't. "It wasn't but it is" is useless and does nothing but create false equivalency.

Unless in your head christianity is a ticking time bomb. Maybe it is, but until then, the real bombs are currently coming from Ahmed and his band of merry men. Deal with that first, then worry whether or not Crusades 2: Electric Boogaloo is just around the corner.

In regards to your response to , he said present day.

By the way, the Spanish conquering of the Aztec empire wasn't done alone. The Native Americans didn't like the Aztecs - Unlike the Roman empire, there was no benefit to being under them. Frequently people from their villages would be taken as sacrifices or slaves. Cortez recruited neighboring tribes to assist him.

Saved the shit out of this. Can't wait to be blocked from cucks' Fagbooks after posting

So you have no numbers. Just google it. Fuck off you pleb. You

So it gives a misleadingly low number for both Christian and Muslim violence, you admit that it underestimates Muslim violence to a larger extent, and the Christian attacks are still two orders of magnitude less common and less injurious than those of Muslims.

And yet you're still trying to equate Christian and Muslim violence in the here and present. Ok then, you have fun with that.

Oh, glad we cleared that up then. Enjoy your life of slavery :^)

No it isn't. If I killed 50 people in the past (let's say 2 years ago) and I argued at my sentencing that I'm really not bad because I killed all those people a while ago and I'm not currently killing people, do you think it would go over well? The only reason christianity isn't killing people is because of secular government. You take that away (like much of the middle east in the 70s/80s) and it gets really violent again. Religion absolutely has not had a positive impact on humanity. While many people overplay the dark ages, it was still a period of technological/scientific standstill caused by religion. It's given people comfort, but is that really worth all of the murders and persecution it's caused? I would say no.

But they would. Also, many American christians do follow parts of the old testament. Of course, it's just the parts they pick and choose (as is common in religion).

you've gotta stop presuming good intentions and good faith and even common sensical reasonableness in your interlocutors.

I will enjoy the kingdom of heaven

For god, i will be a slave

God is certainly pleased with your virtue signaling on an anonymous Tibetan smoke signals symposium
>kys

Your whole argument equating modern day Christianity to Islam is based on what you think people are thinking rather than what they are doing. You must be completely euphoric.

I've told you why christianity is docile right now (in the US, sure as shit not in Uganda, lol). You're right that islam is violent as fuck right now, and is priority (we need to set up secular governments in the middle east/Africa and knock down Saudi Arabia), but that doesn't mean that christianity can't present those exact same issues.

I explained why christianity isn't very violent nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it can't become violent again. In the 70s Iran was a thriving secular country with human rights, today it isn't because of islam.

The actual numbers from christianity's vast history of violence are difficult to calculate. Actual holocaust, USSR purges, etc. numbers are hard to be accurate on, now imagine the same level of violence several times over but a hundred of years ago.

Yep, I'm addressing the point that 'christianity isn't violent,' because it totally is. Right now, yes, islam is more violent because it exists under theocracies, not secular governments. If you swapped christian and muslim countries, christianity would look just like islam nowadays and vice-a-versa.

False analogy. If my father killed people then should I be punished even if I had no part in it? Even if we, say, belonged to the same country club?

>The only reason christianity isn't killing people is because of secular government.
Prove it.

>it was still a period of technological/scientific standstill caused by religion
There are a whole fuck ton of Cred Forums infographics to completely destroy this point showing how the majority of scientists at the time were christian and how they were supported by the church, but I don't have any right now.

>is that really worth all of the murders and persecution it's caused?
You're presenting a false narrative here. Christianity has lead to some of the most humanitarian efforts that have ever existed. Missions in impoverished countries, donations, etc. And that's not even mentioning the great works of art and literature, the monuments erected to god. To claim that this is all worthless in the face of violence is like claiming that the settling of the New World was not worth it because of the death of the natives.

It does not save anyones life from a warzone, because it brings the warzone to the US and Europe.

>This is literally correct - it's called self defense. If it wasn't a case of self defense, then it wasn't. If it was, then it was. Sometimes it is justified to kill people. Sometimes it is justified to be racist.

You completely missed my point (althought this time I genuinely think It wasn't intentional but because you are just stupid). My point wasn't that just because I can come up with some fantastic scenario where racism and murder are ok, then I can use racism and murder as a viable option to make decisions about my everyday problems.

>What I would suggest is increased policing in high-crime (read:black) neighborhoods.

So you wouldn't increase policing in high crime white neighborhoods because it doesn't "read black"?

>This has been statistically proven to lower crime.

Why? Because it targets them because of their high criminality or because it targets them because they are black?

>I don't want you to get the idea that I hate black people or something (I am one, even though I know you won't believe me)

Well since black people are more likely to commit crimes then would you be in favor (if we had the resources) to have a cop behind you 24/7 in case you commit a crime?

The fag nu-male that wrote this is forgetting that the poisoned skittles will kill a hundred people between them.

>I explained why christianity isn't very violent nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it can't become violent again. In the 70s Iran was a thriving secular country with human rights, today it isn't because of islam.

this statement is a bait and switch

Right. So you agree that a 400 lbs woman is into fat acceptance because it's good not because she is fat and her fatness has nothing to do with it. Right? Good.

its too bad you don't understand debating the merits of arguments can be done even if there is also external bias

9/11 victims
Paris massage victims
Boston bombing victims
Fort Hood victims
Florida night club victims

ALL ACCEPTABLE LOSSES IN THE LIBERALS MIND

WHO CARES HOW MANY DIE FOR AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT RASCIST

WELL I AM NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT

Not really. I just realize that christianity itself hasn't really changed since the violent days (neither has islam, by the way), it's government and western society that has changed around it and caused it to become more moderate. Also, nice ad hominem. Thanks for letting me know I won.

>You completely missed my point
It would help if after you said this you actually explained what your point was. Despite what you may think, I actually want to have an argument and not just misrepresent your points. I don't believe I need to do that to "win".

>So you wouldn't increase policing in high crime white neighborhoods because it doesn't "read black"?
No, no, this is just some kind of miscommunication. I thought most people on the internet understood what "read:X" meant.

>Because it targets them because of their high criminality or because it targets them because they are black?

What? Like, what? Yes, because of their high criminality.

>Well since black people are more likely to commit crimes then would you be in favor (if we had the resources) to have a cop behind you 24/7 in case you commit a crime?

Wow, you took my argument and then took it the illogical extreme. And you know what? Just to be a fucking faggot, sure, I'd be okay with having a cop next to be 24/7. I'm not advocating for a police state you fucking mong, I was making the point that racial discrimination can have benefits, I wasn't making the point that we need to throw every black person in jail.

I can debate her on fat acceptance while looking past the fact that she may have some sort of personal reason for believing in it or not, something leftists are apparently incapable of doing.

>Wait guys lets not jump to conclusion, lets discusse whether this fat woman has a point about fat acceptance, after all "debating the merits of arguments can be done even if there is also external bias".
>Things Cred Forums says

Pick one

Please Kek end this world.

Damn, I hate googles.

>It's government and western society that has changed around it
Would you almost say that it's the people who follow Christianity, for one reason or another, have become less violent? And would you say that it's the people who follow Islam, for one reason or another, who are more violent? And if you agree with those, then would you also agree with the idea that we can be selective with the types of people that we let into our country?

If this is all redundant because you already agree with me then just call me a faggot or something, haven't been keeping track of all of your posts.

Also, ad hominem is an insult in place of an argument. If someone were to write a 50 page essay on why you're wrong but call you a faggot at the end you couldn't dismiss it as ad-hominem.

WITNESS ME BROTHERS

>Most liberals who say stuff like this wouldn't actually risk their own lives
They'll sure as shit risk other's lives, though.

No, it would have to be you. Christianity is still christianity. The source material hasn't changed, society has changed around it.

That's convenient. Because I could just tell you that I have a whole shitload of infographics that say the opposite of what you said and it's worth just a much. The dark ages were a thing and they were caused by religion. They just weren't as bad as most people think (which I said).

I love how you mentioned missions. If christians believe that god wouldn't punish people who aren't christians if they have never heard of jesus or christianity, then why would you tell them? All you are doing is sending some people to hell (in your mind). By the way, I didn't say it was worthless, just not worth the body count. Also, more came from settling the Western hemisphere than religion, don't be silly. Also more people have been killed by christianity than all of the natives of the western hemisphere that were killed by the settlers.

But my life is worth more than theirs.

What kind of person am I for thinking this? One that has a survival instinct.

Libtards think they're hot shit for "rising above their animal instincts", when in reality they're just retarded.

I...

I praise kek if he blesses me or not.

He literally just said it, so I'll pick both. I mean, I'm sure you have some kind of external bias for being the minority internet defense force, but we've both been able to look beyond that and focus mainly on each other's points.

>I would gorge myself on skittles

No, liberals never live with the diversity they claim to love. That's why they live in cities that intentionally make it difficult for the poor and new immigrants to move into.

Society performs the best when people act out of their own rational self interest. We've known this for ages and it's a fundamental tenant of our economic philosophy in the US.

I'll never understand why people believe the fleeting "good feeling" they get out of making these kinds of public statements about empathy are more important than trying to actually contribute to society.

People like you fail to understand the diversity of Cred Forums. You're a part of Cred Forums right now, with the same voice as the rest of us yet you seem to think of everyone else on this board as nothing but a bunch of retarded nazis. Cred Forums isn't the kind of site that has a consensus that can't be challenged, and for every person blindly holding onto their beliefs there are people also actually looking up and questioning things

You think that government and Western society was completely made up of secularists and that Christians were just a subservient, unintelligent class of people that allowed themselves to be molded into shape by these secular overlords? Holy shit, leave the house once ina while. And suck on my nads hominem.

The infographic thing wasn't really meant to be any sort of trump card argument, just look out for them later.

>If christians believe that god wouldn't punish people who aren't christians if they have never heard of jesus or christianity, then why would you tell them?
A desire to educate them?

>Just not worth the body count
It's practically impossible to imagine a world without religion, and thus statements like this can't really be backed up. There are too many variables involved to look at everything religion has done for the world and then weigh it against the lives it has cost the world.

>Also, more came from settling the Western hemisphere than religion, don't be silly
Prove it.

>Also more people have been killed by christianity than all of the natives of the western hemisphere that were killed by the settlers.
Prove it.

>I would gladly die to save some stupid terroristic rapists who'll never integrate into our society and destroy Europe as we know it
Hitler didn't die for this

In what way? Nothing is being switched out.

> Would you almost say that it's the people who follow Christianity, for one reason or another, have become less violent?

Yes, but only because the government doesn't tolerate it (isn't allowed to).

> then would you also agree with the idea that we can be selective with the types of people that we let into our country?

Oh no, you're mistaken, I don't want to let Syrian refugees in. They are very violent and I want nothing to do with them (I also don't feel responsible for them in any way - they aren't my problem). My argument is that christianity is also super duper violent, and not really different from islam in that regard. The ad hominem came from the other when he called me euphoric, not you, and that's who the response was to. He's stupid as hell, you can at least argue, he cannot. If you'll read his comment, you'll see that there is no actual argument. He just rephrased what I'm saying (in an intentionally stupider way) then dropped called me euphoric (implying that I'm a neckbeard autist). That is absolutely ad hominem.

Wow you solved the riddle of Cred Forums is just one person.

I'm against limitless immigration yet think the stormfaggotry here is just as retarded as 'normies' do. Not everyone's an edgy teen, it's just easier and convenient for you to write the board off as such.

>Muh Jebus

Way to prove that Christianity is also a dumb meme that is designed to cuck yourselves

At least they aren't raping and pillaging in the name of Jebus tho

I recognized that the ad-hominem comment was in response to him, and going back and reading his post, it seems sound to me, even if not totally elaborated.

You're making the claim that the only reason that we don't have Christian violence on the same level as Muslim violence is because western governments don't tolerate / support it. Thinking about this a bit more, I can see where you're coming from. A lot of terrorist organizations and violent acts of Islam have been supported by middle eastern governments, but to convince me of your point you'd need to prove to me that, given the same amount of power, Christians would do the same. I realize that may not be a fair request given the highly hypothetical nature of the question, but I can't recognize your point as true without that kind of proof.

Someone should make a infographic comparing the enormous hypocrisy of the left. This one is a prime example, but there are so many others. For example, Dylann Roof's action being blamed on all white men and southern culture, while that muslim who killed 50 faggots made them come up with endless excuses not to blame Islam.
Same with Elliot Rodger, where they once again blamed all men for sexism because an autistic hapa shot a bunch of women.
Or Milo and that gorilla from Ghostbusters. As much as I hate Milo, it does show how Twitter treats people differently based on race and ideology, consider all the insanely racist shit that gorilla posts.
Or you know, just anything related to feminism or SJW culture, where all white men are to blame for the actions of individuals, while blacks, muslims and women never are to blame for anything.

>The only way to save them is to make them permanent citizens in a country with a culture and history of jurisprudence that is completely different and incompatible with their own!

What a joke argument.

Thing is you haven't proven anything you've claimed. Your claims of more deaths by Christianity is backed up by "just google it" and "it's difficult, just like the holocaust". You've decided that all religion is bad. Fine. But all religions are not equally bad today. Again, you base your supposition on what you think people think, not what they do. Get bent, fuckface.

>Wow, you took my argument and then took it the illogical extreme.

Of course I did, It's still consistent tho.

>And you know what? Just to be a fucking faggot, sure, I'd be okay with having a cop next to be 24/7.

So when I present you with a consistent scenario that highlights how stupid your arguments are you decide to act like a faggot? Wew

>I was making the point that racial discrimination can have bennefits. I wasn't making the point that we need to throw every black person in jail.

Again, when the fuck did I even imply that your argument was "lets throw black people in jail"? Never. I pointed out to one benefit that your "racial descrimination has" and you lost your shit.

>I can debate her on fat acceptance while looking past the fact that she may have some sort of personal reason for believing in it or not, something leftists are apparently incapable of doing

Funny I went and ask some leftist and they said "they were capable of debating the Syrian refugee crisis past the fact of their race, something that Cred Forums (read:You) is incapable of doing" It's almost like you and those idiots are the same side of the coin.

What he doesn't get is the one eating represents the country, not an individual. The poison kills more than just him.

Replace "skittles" with "black dick"

>I would kill myself to save refugees

These people need extermination.

I hope this faggot's family gets raped by a pack of wild skittles.

No you idiot, they said we're incapable of having good points because we can't see beyond race. While I'm saying that even though they are biased, the merit of their arguments must be treated separately. Can you really not see the difference? Or are you just blindly picking posts supporting your narrative of Cred Forums and ignoring the rest?

Don't count me in, I just pass by to show some of these members how their racism blinds their view.

And you are the one who seems to misunderstand the diversity of pol. Just read any thread and the majority of people seem to agree that blacks are lesser than whites. It's almost impossible to have discussion about any topic in a serious manner because the racist bias of some posters just turns everything into shit.

you write as if someone mischaracterized you, but this is your first post on the thread.

thinking of pol as anything but as a playground for white supremacists is self-deceiving. you deserve your guilt by association.

>Enjoying human lives
What a fag.

the analogy should be about feeding the skittles to your children, not eating them yourself

Couldn't your views of anti racism be blinding your views?

Never said any of that, you're just stupid. The government was designed to be secular, per the first amendment of the constitution (which actually spells out freedom from religion in government, it's this that we derive freedom of religion from).

Then why don't they leave religion out of it?

It is extremely difficult to imagine a world without religion, and I'm not certain that something else would not create the same level of violence in its absence. What I can refer to, though, is the violence caused by religion.

What do you mean prove it? Obviously it's subjective, but I would absolutely say that more has come from settling the western hemisphere (every country in the western hemisphere, every technological advancement made by someone who lives in, studied in, or was born in the western hemisphere, etc.).

As for the deaths from western hemisphere being less than deaths from christianity, this is automatically true because most of the people killed in the settling of the western hemisphere south of the present day US were killed by christianity. The only people that weren't killed by christianity in this process were those killed by smallpox (estimated at 9 million - obtained from an estimate of 10 million natives living in what is now the US, and the statistic that 90% died to smallpox and other diseases, and assuming this was not intentional, so doesn't count towards christianity's numbers). The crusades alone were 1.7 million people. Between the 30 years war (which knocked off 40% of Germany's population), other wars faught on the basis of christianity, the various inquisitions, and sprinkling in of the catholic extermination camps (near the time of the Nazis these existed in countries in eastern Europe like Croatia) alone, we easily pass that number.

How about "eat skittles, but three of them would explode and kill you and a few other skittles around you, and slowly spreads this exploding trait to other skittles."

No, it isn't consistent. We're moving away from a discussion about the potential benefits of racial discrimination to a discussion on privacy rights in America.

>I pointed out to one benefit that your "racial descrimination has" and you lost your shit
Because of the broken english here I can't even tell what point you're trying to make, but I'm going to go ahead and say that you are misrepresenting my argument. I presented a real world scenario where """racial discrimination""" had a benefit - increased policing in black neighborhoods and being more cautious around black people. You then took this point and came up with "Well if you want increased policing in black neighborhoods then why don't you want cops following blacks around 24/7, hunh?????"

This is a childish debate tactic. "If you want taxes raised, why don't you want a 100% tax rate, hunh????" "If you want to lower immigration, why don't we lower it to 0, hunh????" In certain cases it is a legitimate point, such as when discussing a raising of the minimum wage. In others, however, the answer is obvious. It's typically either because it's a bad idea or just because that's not what the person was arguing.

In this case I argued for increased policing of black communities. You then asked why we wouldn't have cops following blacks around 24/7. The reason is because I wasn't arguing for that. I don't know whether or not that's a good idea, or the kind of effect on crime it would have. I do know that a lot of people would have privacy concerns about that, but it's almost a strawman position. You're saying "If you support this, then I guess you would also support THIS, right????"

>Funny I went and ask some leftist and they said "they were capable of debating the Syrian refugee crisis past the fact of their race, something that Cred Forums (read:You) is incapable of doing"
It is funny, considering how I did debate the syrian refugee crisis beyond the fact of their race. Fucking character limit.

If these people truly believe that then why aren't they going to house the rapefugees?

They aren't sacrificing shit, but they sure like talking like they do.

Then when the people these little brown invaders end up living around get pissed off, faggots like this just call them racist.

That's because he has no proof. He's applying his internal bias to all modern day religions by bringing up irrelevant historical facts and shaky numbers while ignoring the current state of these religions. He has no basis as to why he thinks modern Christians would be as violent as Muslims other than "religion is bad, mmmkay?" He also seems to think that western civilization developed in a bubble outside of the Christian world and existed to reign in those crazy Christian zealots, ignoring the fact that christians made up the politicians, scientists, artists, etc. of society. Christianity reformed because of Christians, not because secularists forced them to.

Why do you consider every death of a Native American south of the US to be a direct result of Christianity?

They have in the past, that's my point. Christianity has not changed. It's not like christianity was really violent before the reformation, then it all of a sudden wasn't. It's the same old christianity.

Christianity isn't structurally different from islam. I don't know that all religions are equally bad, but with the violence found even in buddhism (Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Philipines I think) I'm leaning that way. I do know that all western religions are about on the same level of badness. I've explained to you why I think that, if you want to deny history, then be my guest, bu that's on you. Closing your ears and screaming "na na na na" as you have been doesn't make me any less right.

>Son, eat this bowl of skittles. You'll die, but it's the right thing to do.
>B-but.. I don't want to die, daddy..
>EAT THE FUCKING SKITTLES, I HAVE A REPUTATION TO UPHOLD

>refugee lives are more important than the white ones that would get blown up by the bad skittles

Cucks gonna cuck

>Couldn't your views of anti-Leprechaunism be blinding you from seeing leprechauns?

Cred Forums Where rednecks come to argue.

Gotta kill these people, there is no other way.

wtf i hate skittles now

Not every native, but I couldn't find any figures on the smallpox breakdown, however I know it is considerably smaller because Cortez and the others were very violent very quickly (in order to try and convert the locals, which didn't go over well) instead of those in the north (modern day US) who weren't as violent as quickly, and allowed the natives to contract diseases (primarily smallpox, but also typhus, diarrhea, etc.) and die from them. Exact numbers are extremely difficult, but I was illustrating with a very rough estimate that the numbers weren't even close.

But I'm not convinced that the same would be true today is the thing. Christianity hasn't changed, but certainly the people of western civilization have.

Empathy is a form of domestication in humans. It's necessary and critical for society to function, and it does this by enabling altruistic actions that help the group but hurt the individual. Suicide is a counterpart to this, wherein individuals who cannot contribute to the group and in fact drain the group's resources, opt to kill themselves and thus improves the group's chances of survival, as the group empathy won't otherwise let the individual die.

These are both predominantly civilized traits. The more civilized / domesticated an ethnicity is, the greater degree of empathy and suicide.

The trouble comes when we introduce groups which do not share the empathic traits - instead taking advantage of such kindness. In the short term it's a beneficial strategy, in the long term it's disastrous; individualist selfish traits are rapidly wiped out by group selfish traits.

My life is infinitely more important to me than anyone else's save for my own children. No, I would not sacrifice myself nor my family, nor even my nation for strangers.

We need to look into why liberals do not have this natural in-group/out-group mentality.

You're talking about a time when no one knew what caused illness. People thought Smallpox was caused by ghosts or some shit. We didn't have microscopes capable of seeing viruses. There's no way those diseases were spread intentionally, and there's never been any proof of intent.

a single poison skittle usually takes out a few dozen people, also googles=nigger skypes=kikes skittles=terrorists

I literally just reversed your orginal statement. >proceeds with damage control
I'm not even white but I can admit racial reality.

If you ever want to trip up someone hating on all blacks just bring up Ben Carson.

>I'm not even white
Leave please.

Hey, this thread is kinda dying now, so I'd just like to compliment you on your argumentation skills. I still don't agree with you that religion has been a force for evil in the course of human events, but you definitely got my noggin joggin.

And don't take this as a concession, faggot

It would take time, but just like how Iran changed from a secular society in the 70s/80s to the shithole it is now when a theocracy was established, I'm sure the same would happen here. You see the exact same arguments made by extremists of both sides (homosexuals are immoral and the bible/qu'ran says to kill them, wives should be subservient to their husbands etc.), now imagine how radicals would begin to take over if law were based on biblical law. It would be like the patiotic fervor right after 9/11 in the US (where you were un-American if you didn't support the wars) on steroids (moderate christians would be viewed as non-christians and persecuted because they don't approve of killing adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). Would it take more time than Iran? Yeah, it probably would, but I have no doubt that christianity would look like islam and export lots of terrorism.

Your probably an Anglo or potato nigger. Actual whites usually don't mind bro tier minority's. Only """"whites"""" get upset.

I know, that's what I said. the 9,000,000 was the portion christianity wasn't responsible for, so in order for my statement to be true I would need to find 9,000,000 + deaths due to christianity, but not due to settling the western hemisphere. The rest of the deaths more or less were caused by christianity and therefore members of both groups.

Fair enough, I was about to head out pretty soon too. Have a good night.

You keep bringing up Iran as your shining example. Is that all you have? Are we going to ignore the culture of the area or just say that Ugandan Christians are the same as say, Minnesotan Christians?

Lmfao... this made me laugh

>""""whites""""
And the shitskin rears its ugly head. It doesn't matter how pro-white a shitskin acts. If you make a harmless joke at its expense, it behaves like an animal.

GTFO.

ThisYou have to turn it around on them, ask them will they feed that poisoned candy to their mother? To their father? To their wifes son?

LOL! Are you literally making a "triggered" argument?!?! That's seriously what I would expect from a college campus!
>how dare that white person make fun of a person of color!

You're so triggered you had to double post?

I literally just reversed your orginal statement.

Riiight, because having a racially biased argument is as valid/invalid as having a non-racially biased argument. Do you not understand that having an unbiased argument is better than having a biased argument, only an idiot from Cred Forums would think about mocking the first one.

>I'm not even white but I can admit racial reality.

Wow every person I argue with in Cred Forums says "they are not white people but . . . (Insert argument in favor of racism)"

No, I thought I could do a better job with just one post but I accidentally deleted both of them instead of just the original. oh well...but seriously admit your an Anglo or potato nigger

>>every person I argue with
It's like I don't even exist.

But Uganda christians aren't the same as Minnesota christians. You don't actually believe that do you? Let's start nice and simple, how many paramilitary christian (their sole purpose being to create a government under the 10 commandments) cults are there in Minnesota? I don't know of any. You remember that joseph Kony guy? Well, his creation, the Lord's Resistance Army, is alive aand well in northern Uganda and employs child soldiers to kill scores of people. Do you honestly think there is no difference between the christians of Uganda and Minnesota? That's deliberate ignorance.

What you perceive as an unbiased argument isn't actually an unbiased argument. The schools have conditioned you to believe that thinking all people are equal is unbiased when in actuality it is a biase that leans towards a left wing ideology.
You would be surprised how many people on pol aren't white.

I'm Welsh-American, does that count?

Anglo, just as I expected...are you the eternal WASP?

*bias

I don't want to have this conversation anymore.

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Jesus said that. It's somewhat of a conundrum because "though shalt not kill" is a commandment in addition to "though shalt not steal". So do you lose your head like the coptic christians and the 80 year old priest, or do you kill to protect your family and country and ask for forgiveness knowing you will be judged similar to Muslims who would kill you? For me, it's an easy answer.

It's okay, I'm half Anglo half shitskin...I'm genetic garbage.

It's okay, amigo. Sabes que we're all hermanos here.

Gotta love these imaginary people they create for the purpose of their messiah delusion

>Thinking this is about individual lives

It should be rephrased as "If 3 of them would murder you and your family, rape girls small girls in public places, systematically strip away your civil liberties, and displace natural born citizens and all you get in return is a warm-fuzzy, would you?"

I'm sure all the women who have been assaulted and raped because of your virtue signalling feel so much better now that you're 'mourning their sacrifice'.

The irony being this idiot is playing the 'YOU THINK YOUR LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN THEIRS', but they are literally willing to risk the deaths of others because they believe their cause is more important than someone else's life.

Litterally watched this episode an hour ago. Praise Kek!