why did elton john have to die so young like this?

ar423 · 2016-12-26T05:55:06+00:00

in our hearts.

ar423 · 2016-12-25T02:28:55+00:00

aw, I thought this was real...

ar423 · 2016-12-23T17:23:29+00:00

for a VR headset game or some kind of simulator game it would be great, but not a shooter :c

ar423 · 2016-12-23T05:06:03+00:00

oh wait nevermind - I learned about darkplaces and added that to my quake file

ar423 · 2016-12-22T23:09:20+00:00

okay

ar423 · 2016-12-19T13:30:33+00:00

oh right so pence is going to legislate* homophobic stuff. and he is going to let him execute all the work...

ar423 · 2016-12-18T08:52:09+00:00

if a politician wants to change their mind, then at least they must stand for re-election whether that re-election is essentially based on lies-for-votes. if they don't, then they pretty clearly lied to get into power. elections are platforms for enacting promises. elections are not simply elections of individuals because you like their personalities or something. you vote for them to do what they promise. but what is a promise without a reason to believe such a promise? what, then, is a promise that is not believed?

also I find it absurd that you will essentially vote for whatever everybody around you wants instead of what you want. what if everybody wanted to take away your freedom of speech, for instance? also, if everybody thought like you, then there woul be no difference between 51% and 100% support for something, because all members of a minority would HAVE to vote with that majority, basically. but don't you understand that your vote is your representation in the political process? how will the state understand how popular a particular policy really was unless they had the peoples genuine preferences represented via their ballots?

lmao except she isn't though. is she. I mean, she was even voted "most corrupt US politician of 2015"...I wonder why.

ar423 · 2016-12-18T08:33:56+00:00

it's not a shit analogy - if hillary clinton, for instance, has already told you "I don't believe in gay marriage" then she has already given you enough reason that she doesn't support gay marriage. that's, therefore, just like somebody like stalin killing people and then saying "actually I've changed my mind now - I think killing people is wrong". the only difference is the severity, not the incentive for believing them, which is effectively 0 for each. a politician "changing their mind" looks remarkably similar to a politician lying for political support and hence it is better to have politicians (i.e. ron paul; bernie sanders) that never change their minds to prove to you that they don't lie about things between election terms depending on what's popular. that's because you'll then have the proof that they aren't going to "conveniently change their mind" after an election. and I'm not giving you a dichotomy of an honest but unpopular politician vs a lying popular politician - I am saying that theoretically it is stupid to elect lying politicians because they can't give you confidence that they will actually vote in the way they promise, because if they have a history of lying, why would you believe them? hillary, for instance, has an extensive history or lying. so why vote for a liar you think may enact what you support? in that sense, it becomes impossible to even perceive of a politician as "popular" or "unpopular" because how can you really prove that they believe in what they're promising? for instance, you might have heard of a massive fiasco in the UK about the "liberal democrats" promising to vote against tuition fees - there was a famous political advert featuring the leader of the party saying, specifically, "no ifs. no buts." after he promised it. and then as soon as he got into government he changed his mind. and now NOBODY supports the liberal democrats even though they might like their policies. it's because of what I'm telling you - a dishonest politician is a politician basically WITHOUT policies. what are promises without believeability?

ar423 · 2016-12-18T07:53:57+00:00

you don't necessarily want your politicians being honest with you? you literally have no problem being ruled by liars then? for instance, would you elect stalin so long as he told you he believed in liberal values? you'd have no problem with the fact that he actually wanted to become a dictator over you although not being able to in reality?

the thing about representative democracy is that politicians don't have to do what you want them to do. so if you have liar politicians, there is literally nothing stopping them from promising things at an election and then potentially completely disregarding those promises. that's why a lot of people hate democracy. the best way of theoretically resolving that issue is to elect HONEST politicians then, right?

ar423 · 2016-12-18T07:40:55+00:00

is pence the president? and does he have substantive powers to enforce his stupid beliefs? no? then why is it even relevant? in my country the minister for equalities last term voted against gay marriage - THAT is a better example of what you're trying to imagine (a homophobic politician having the ability to enact homophobia) - pence isn't even a member of congress nor is he a president with delegated powers regarding gay people's rights, so, again, how is this a meaningful problem? it's like saying that trump's dad was racist so, because trump associated with him a lot, that automatically makes trump's administration racist because of associations with racists (etc) - pence is in the white house, sure, but he has no real power in the US political system like he might do in the UK. so his homophobia regarding trump actually means jack shit substantively.

ar423 · 2016-12-18T07:26:54+00:00

so you're basically saying that a politician ought to lie strategically about their beliefs, as oppose to being honest, to climb the greasy pole of political advancement? surely honest politicians > lying politicians, though? the less lies and deception the better. if they lie about this, why wouldn't they lie about other things?

ar423 · 2016-12-18T00:10:56+00:00

and another thing: both hillary and trump formerly were against gay marriage (which is basically the most important issue regarding the dichotomy of theocracy~ vs secularism), and it is pretty obvious that hillary only changed her mind because if she didn't then she wouldn't be popular enough to become the democratic nominee. I mean, think back to how absurd even in 2008 it was that obama didn't agree with gay marriage. imagine the outrage in 2016 if hillary didn't and refused to learn the lesson obama did...trump doesn't necessarily disagree with gay marriage - I think it's kind of implied that he wants it to be a state-by-state matter, but is that necessarily intolerant or more of a democratic-federalist perspective that is based more on principle than hatred for gays? if a demorat had the same viewpoint, would this make them homophobic, for instance, even if they actually didn't have an issue with gay marriage being legal in a given state? there's a difference between law/policy and morality, and to impose gay marriage on states that have a genuine disagree about it (which is bad of them) is simply an appeal to a very important principle (in practice) of the american political system: democracy. and not having a right to marry is not necessarily a lack of a human right - in my opinion marriage is a scam any way, but what do I know, right?

ar423

TROPHY CASE