Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

WeaponGradeSadness posted:

Right, it does get murky, but--correct me if I'm wrong, somebody--my impression from Balkan goons in the Mladic GBS thread is that it all originated after WWII, with the Serbian belief that Bosnian Muslims were Nazi collaborators. The Kashmir conflict is over control of Kashmir with some religious overtones. The Tamil conflict didn't have anything at all to do with religion, it was on ethnic lines--although the Tamil Tigers did try to push Muslims out of the north, it was because they thought the Muslims, as a group, supported the Sri Lankan government, not specifically because they were a different religion. The Middle East conflict can be laid more at the feet of European colonialism than Islam. Same goes for the other conflicts Dawkins mentions: religion is a component, and saying it isn't would be dishonest, but so would calling the conflicts religious in nature when it's only partly so.

Although I think everyone can agree that D'Souza's point on this issue lost all credibility when he made a bunch of poo poo up about Hitler

It shouldn't have any credibility from the get-go. He's seeking to imply that a conflict can only be because of atheism or religion. Therefore if the conflict isn't due to religious differences it must obviously be because of atheists.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2011 06:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:13

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

It took me a few moments to realize that that was referring to the procedure of fracking and not some strange replacement for "loving".

# ¿ Jun 27, 2011 20:07

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

The other 50% are marginalized and kept too stupid and poor by those that get the government assistance.

The original 50% are the companies/rich

# ¿ Jul 6, 2011 19:16

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Gee, I wonder what happens when you compare how much they paid versus how much of the total income they make. I BET there's a correlation. But maybe that's just crazy talk.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2011 15:29

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

I'm still giggling about the "Needed Investment Capital" phrase.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 19:03

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

You're forgetting the radroach problem.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2011 23:34

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

nm posted:

So the birth certificate and long form wasn't enough. Now they want the "vault" certificate.
Birthers are like creationists, every time they get the proof they demand, they make up a new thing they need. I suspect if you did a poll, there'd be a lot of cross-over.

Vault-Tec, a name you can trust!

# ¿ Sep 19, 2011 19:44

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Deleuzionist posted:

Who's the old lion in this ridiculous thing? LBJ?

Reagan of course. It's ALWAYS Reagan.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2011 19:21

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Amarkov posted:

No, that's it. There's a fairly common talking point that cultures who permit "sexual deviancy" (whatever the commentator thinks that means) start decaying and get their country destroyed.

What, are you trying to imply that they instead fell because of internal weaknesses caused by an ineffectual government, idle populace, and a ruined economy brought about by an over-privileged few?

# ¿ Jan 16, 2012 07:06

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Punishable by death, of course.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2012 00:42

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Helsing posted:

Honestly if I were pro-life I'm sure I'd be frustrated at the clever sloganeering lying behind the term "pro-choice". I'm sure that the vaguely progressive connotation the word holds is part of why the pro-abortion movement adopted it so widely.

The real issue with that column is that he's begging the question. The reason a pro-choice person is comfortable with abortion is because they don't think the fetus is a living organism. Thus it has no rights. In a case where there aren't two living entities with competing claims to a right, there's no reason not to accept a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Hence if you don't think that the fetus is a person then of course the only relevant question is what you are personally choosing to do with your body.

Except you would also have to be blind about what YOUR term implies about the other side.

Being called Anti-Choice is not only accurate (They don't want it to be a choice) but also a lot better than being called Anti-Life, which isn't accurate (They don't want ALL babies aborted).

# ¿ Mar 5, 2012 01:48

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

I was going to type this out, but my brain tried to escape so I'm just going to attach it. From a friend of a friend on FB.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Apr 10, 2012 00:09

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Mo_Steel posted:

Which is why we need more stringent voter ID laws. The very idea that fraud in whatever insignificant amount could possibly occur means it's better to disenfranchise some voters just in case.

If we disenfranchise all of the voters then there will be no more fraud.

The only acceptable ID in the future is a stock portfolio.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 20:24

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

VideoTapir posted:

"Obama�s fantasy: War�s over, if we say so"

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 15:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:13

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Orange Devil posted:

Canadian anarchists, not quite as accomplished as Serbian anarchists.

You say that, but when's the last time you've seen an Archduke in Canada?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 17:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor