Munich Mall Shooting -

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should i quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ..? Our greatest gift to the world.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



Go ahead, do it. Shit on the foundation of Civilization if you want. I dare you. I fucking double-dare you [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting quote. It establishes that those who exercise neither reason, nor conscience are not human.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go ahead, do it. Shit on the foundation of Civilization if you want. I dare you. I fucking double-dare you [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Okay. It's rather easy. Here (*points at the Cartesian Ego presented by the coFrenchPerson). The endowment isn't satisfied by an a priori framing which is a crucial condition for the satisfaction of an argument conditioned by tiers of any kind. By conditioning the statement with the quality of being endowed, such a foundation does not satisfy the a priori, that implies a greater tier that has the capacity to enact such an endowment. If freedom is the initial premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. If equality is the initil premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. Boil the notions down to their foundation then the notions morph to something that promotes a progeneration or progression that maintains that tier based system conserving its premises. The ego portion ties into whether or not that tier system is subjectively valid (the numerous fallacies associated wkth that). So the foundation becomes a mere subjectivity argued in certain premises, you see?

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Okay. It's rather easy. Here (*points at the Cartesian Ego presented by the coFrenchPerson). The endowment isn't satisfied by an a priori framing which is a crucial condition for the satisfaction of an argument conditioned by tiers of any kind. By conditioning the statement with the quality of being endowed, such a foundation does not satisfy the a priori, that implies a greater tier that has the capacity to enact such an endowment. If freedom is the initial premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. If equality is the initil premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. Boil the notions down to their foundation then the notions morph to something that promotes a progeneration or progression that maintains that tier based system conserving its premises. The ego portion ties into whether or not that tier system is subjectively valid (the numerous fallacies associated wkth that). So the foundation becomes a mere subjectivity argued in certain premises, you see?

drugs

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

drugs

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

heavy drug use.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TLDR = Incel.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Okay. It's rather easy. Here (*points at the Cartesian Ego presented by the coFrenchPerson). The endowment isn't satisfied by an a priori framing which is a crucial condition for the satisfaction of an argument conditioned by tiers of any kind. By conditioning the statement with the quality of being endowed, such a foundation does not satisfy the a priori, that implies a greater tier that has the capacity to enact such an endowment. If freedom is the initial premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. If equality is the initil premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. Boil the notions down to their foundation then the notions morph to something that promotes a progeneration or progression that maintains that tier based system conserving its premises. The ego portion ties into whether or not that tier system is subjectively valid (the numerous fallacies associated wkth that). So the foundation becomes a mere subjectivity argued in certain premises, you see?

heavy drug use.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Okay. It's rather easy. Here (*points at the Cartesian Ego presented by the coFrenchPerson). The endowment isn't satisfied by an a priori framing which is a crucial condition for the satisfaction of an argument conditioned by tiers of any kind. By conditioning the statement with the quality of being endowed, such a foundation does not satisfy the a priori, that implies a greater tier that has the capacity to enact such an endowment. If freedom is the initial premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. If equality is the initil premise then such a systematic tier system would not be necessary thus not promoting any progeneration or progression. Boil the notions down to their foundation then the notions morph to something that promotes a progeneration or progression that maintains that tier based system conserving its premises. The ego portion ties into whether or not that tier system is subjectively valid (the numerous fallacies associated wkth that). So the foundation becomes a mere subjectivity argued in certain premises, you see?

TLDR = Incel.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

racial laws then ? it's funny how important is the 2nd amendment is so important to you all but the rest is #YOLO-dontcare

It's a straw man argument you tool. Chicago has strict gun control laws and nearly as many fatalities as Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past 15 years. The US has something like 300 million guns; regardless of laws regulating their use criminals will obtain and use them. That is what makes them criminals. And since even the higher homicide rate among Blacks is only 50 per million, the vast majority of Blacks are not criminals and therefore should not be prohibited from owning guns.

The point is that guns are orthogonal to crime. People who want to kill each other will manage to do so whether they have guns or not. The dissolution of the Black nuclear family by liberals (only 25% of all American Blacks are born to two parent homes) and the replacement of fathers by gangster rap is definitely a huge part of the problem.

Oh well, the robots will kill us all in 25 years anyway.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh well, the robots will kill us all in 25 years anyway.

Sweet, merciful death!

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sweet, merciful death!

Naaah, death will come from a lab long before that. Slapping goop together seeing what will happen, yet while somethong as basic as a bee in flight, well that's impossible, and theiy're all perplexed over it. I'd bet on zombie hoards before armies of robots.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The dissolution of the Black nuclear family by liberals

Lol that's a new one.

Those dastardly liberals