[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.14450[Reply]

File: 1726643694957.jpg (36.75 KB, 203x250, 203:250, _42642151_manbitesdog.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What're your thoughts about the current social controversy in the U.S. about many American politicians arguing that roving gangs of black people are allegedly eating the cats and dogs of others in the country?

There are countless articles on this set of claims by politicians, such as: https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/09/11/trump-haitian-immigrants-eating-pet-dogs-and-cats/

In broader context, details about what it's like to eat them can be seen here (note that this is not a story about America and/or Americans as well as doesn't involve politics at all): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6419041.stm
40 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14496

>>14495
>maybe
lol

 No.14501

File: 1727199862311.jpg (72.34 KB, 1392x781, 1392:781, Become evil.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14493
For the betterment of mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwjP8HCpE4E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDnUPdob-bk

 No.14542

>>14491
Alright. Look. If I applied your ""logic"" to my own life, then I'd be a part of a militia that just murders all of the straight white cisgender able-bodied Christians in America to prevent them from successfully wiping out the Jews, the LGBTs, the disabled, and so on. A preventative genocide to prevent them from setting forth their genocide on us. So, everybody who's a Donald Trump or like him would be dead.

Would you view that as a good idea? As morally justified? Would you really support me in doing that?

After all, I'd just be putting down a ""breed"" of human beings that can't peaceful coexist with the ""breeds"" that I and my friends plus family are a part of it? Right? After all?

 No.14466[Reply]

I'll just leave this here.

(It's based off the classic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo.)
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14506

>>14466
Left once again proving they've never matured...

>>14498 has the right idea.
I just don't give a crap about this '2025' fearmongering.
The more it's put forward everywhere I look, the more I'm convinced it's another fake.

 No.14509

>>14506

In the original video, the kid is portrayed the same. The difference is in Bill. In the original, Bill is portrayed as a humble Christian who prays that he might one day become a law. In the satirical version, Bill is portrayed like someone on a power trip, as he is no longer a humble bill hoping for the approval of independent branches of government representing the will of the people, but rather someone on a power-trip who doesn't care what anyone else thinks, with his 800+ pages and eager, empty expression. It's the difference between real Christianity, which is about loving your neighbor and fake Christianity, where you ignore (or worse) your neighbor.

 No.14511

>>14466
Donald Trump's voters base their opinions on their hatreds, particularly racial and religious prejudice, and this is exactly what they want.

As the saying goes, "the cruelty is the point".

If you're disabled, if you're Jewish, if you're Muslim, if you're gay, or whatever else, then you're inferior to Trump and his supporters, in their eyes, and they demand that you heel to them by force. That's just life. That's just where it is.

There's almost no difference between politics in America during the 1930s and the 1940s and politics now: the same scapegoats believed by the past right-wing to have destroyed the economy and harmed American civilization then (particularly Jews and gay people as well as the handicapped) are STILL the targeted groups of disdain now. This is why Donald Trump told his nephew that disabled people should be all ideally euthanized because we're a drain on capitalist resources.

 No.14467[Reply]

File: 1726794562364.jpg (16.15 KB, 404x323, 404:323, Freedom-of-Speech-Versus-D….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Let's suppose that you live in a nation with a legal system like the U.S. with freedom of speech beyond what currently exists as a logical extreme, with no restrictions of any sort being set up at all in this new place.

For example, all websites would legally be able to advertise videos of real child abuse of sale, to post public plans of assassination, to share theories of how to use victim's stolen bank records, and all that.

Does there reach a clear-cut point in which too much freedom of speech damages other basic civic rights?

Suppose I, a hypothetical businessman named Bob Smith, get mad that my bank account data has been stolen and shared online. And I decide to fight for a "Government Censorship Act" that would legally prohibit the doxxing of people's sensitive information online, particularly by posting here-and-there credit card numbers. I proclaim "Americans should have less liberties and freedoms" because their speech has destroyed my "private property rights" in my activism.

Am I "evil"? Am I "bad"? Am I "wrong"? Am I "social-justice-warrior"? Am I "woke"? Am I "far left"? How far from the logical extreme is acceptable to go before people like me would become damned?

 No.14468

The short answer is no.

The long answer: Basic civil rights have to be defined, and any freedom of communication would have to be compared to civil rights as defined by its own system and therefore could absolutely not infringe upon them.

Now, how do we define civil rights, and how should we define civil rights?  That question is always up in the air.  Like surely we agree that you shouldn't be able to murder someone, but like you mentioned, does that mean you shouldn't be able to talk about murdering someone?  Is it your right to not be murdered?  And if so, is the state required to stop murder in every way possible, including arrest people who merely mention murder?  It's a tough question, because every step of freedom given up is a loss, and that isn't worth it until you witness enough murders to change your mind.

In more realistic and less theoretical terms, freedom of speech seems like it was originally intended to mean "the government we're forming won't imprison or assassinate you because you tell people you don't like us", which was and in some places still is a common problem.  That people have taken it to mean "I can literally say whatever I want and no one can do anything about it" leads to really weird situations, not the least of which is people going to websites that are technically private, pissing everyone off, and then saying they can't be removed because it violates their freedom of speech.

 No.14288[Reply]

File: 1723322678983.png (924.93 KB, 1080x1659, 360:553, Screenshot_20240810-111642.png) ImgOps Google

Can UK still be saved?
61 posts and 38 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14448

>>14415

"instigated by pro-israeli types on behalf of Israel"

Do go on and explain

 No.14449

File: 1726525408904.png (454.24 KB, 512x768, 2:3, bgfd.png) ImgOps Google

People keep saying the UK is dying, but it still exists. When will they finally kill it so we can finally be done with the whole ridiculous thing?

 No.14456

File: 1726686451425.png (326.3 KB, 710x1024, 355:512, nuke_california.png) ImgOps Google

>>14449
Someday the dream of Welsh independence will be realised. Owain Glyndŵr's legacy is eternal.

 No.14428[Reply]

File: 1725252247641.png (1.45 MB, 1080x1990, 108:199, 1704561128261986.png) ImgOps Google

You are all silly billies.
5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14445

>>14444
>>14443
Grade A silly billy here

 No.14446

File: 1726018700893.jpg (300.58 KB, 1760x1910, 176:191, E2tBRilVUAYoUNn.jpg large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14444
Nah, Steam Twist won. Ponychan.net wouldn't have died if he hadn't cast that spell to avoid permaban.

>>14436
oh hot damnb got me there son

 No.14447

File: 1726030026843.jpg (146.57 KB, 965x690, 193:138, 59c6a5bf1f294329c06801ce30….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14446
Dad?

 No.14368[Reply]

File: 1724193736449.png (782.66 KB, 1080x1196, 270:299, Screenshot_20240820-182947.png) ImgOps Google

The other thread got kind of derailed, so here's a new thread about tyranny in the UK.

https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/1825977695361994875
28 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14431

>>14430
Wouldn't "foreign citizens cannot travel to our territory in order to publicly lobby for different things" also be a viewpoint neutral speech rule? It's thoroughly applied fairly to all peoples on an equal level, right? And wouldn't it inherently make sense for citizens to be treated differently legally than non-citizens?

 No.14432

>>14431
>Wouldn't "foreign citizens cannot travel to our territory in order to publicly lobby for different things" also be a viewpoint neutral speech rule?
Yes.  But that alone doesn't mean that it is constitutional or good policy.  E.g., I think it would be a bad idea to imprison H-1B workers for speaking online about their grievances with the immigration system.

>And wouldn't it inherently make sense for citizens to be treated differently legally than non-citizens?
No, at least for anonymous/pseudonymous speech, because it isn't feasible to determine whether the speaker is a citizen or not.  And there is a 1A right to speak anonymously/pseudonymously.

 No.14433

Anyone should be able to say what they want, regardless of other people's feelings.

 No.14317[Reply]

File: 1723877109027.jpg (624.61 KB, 2222x3333, 2:3, Drugs.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Some social media types are in hot water at the moment due to this independent study that alleges the coming of "a flood of ads on Facebook and Instagram that pointed users to third-party services where they could purchase prescription pills, cocaine and other recreational drugs."

< https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mark-zuckerberg-receives-letter-lawmakers-over-illicit-drug-ads-rcna166809 >

Is this a big deal? I'm not personally sure... because my instincts say... that the U.S. government is too censorship happy... doesn't it seem to be like that?

Maybe substances such as cocaine ought to be totally legalized in the U.S. in the first place? Is this a matter of basic freedoms? Maybe? Maybe not?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14355

>>14351
I don't think it's accountability.
It's responsibility, as in the USA assuming it's the addict's own responsibility to get out of their situation.
So there's no investment into social programs.

 No.14357

File: 1724140697939.jpeg (94.04 KB, 450x561, 150:187, Ashley graves hoodie and ….jpeg) ImgOps Google

It would eliminate a lot of unnecessary suffering. I also believe the price of drugs should be lowered and that we should be making a whole lot more of them. Pharmaceutical companies prey on a lack of education while actively trying to make the drugs you buy illegal for anyone else to grow or produce for every except for their own selves. They do this and then turn around telling everyone else that it's for our safety. It isn't. It's for profit. The cost of producing those drugs is mere pennies compared to their profits.

I suspect this is why education isn't free and a scam at the end of the day. They want to put a price tag on something that isn't material and pretend it is; knowledge. I've met so many people who know more about a subject than people with a degree in that subject. It's ridiculous. The biggest thing that holds people back from getting that piece of paper is money. Then you turn around and try to justify that piece of paper by ramping up the prices on a product because 'it's super duper hard to make guize!" Which is horseshit. Making drugs is a process that requires specific details and a sterile environment sure, but that doesn't justify the sheer level of greed in the industry.

It's similar to the same reason I hate a lot of fashion. People are selling you a shoe with the exact same materials as the next and pricing it at 500 dollars for a pair. It's absolutely stupid. The actual labor doesn't translate either. Sure, companies like that have to invest in machines for mass production, but the profits have long, long paid all of that off.

A good example is the price of insulin. It is ridiculous. Or what about the fact that if you donate plasma a lot of places might pay you like 50 bucks for a pint (and that's if you weight like 175lbs minimum) and then turn around and flip that pint for $800-$1600 a pop. And they get it from desperate people all of the time. It's predatory.

 No.14411

>>14351
>>14355
Both things are problems.

 No.13639[Reply]

File: 1719153822041.jpg (446.83 KB, 1001x808, 1001:808, chinese cough and sneeze.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Looking back in at covid in hindsight what are your thoughts on how the world reacted?
61 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14279

File: 1723090021585.jpg (519.02 KB, 2500x2480, 125:124, FSCv1_wUcAAZ7Wy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14261
Bro are you a pizza cutter 'cause that's a lot of fuckin' edge you got there.

 No.14280

>>14261
From a pragmatic point of view, you're correct. That's the reason people would abandon or outright kill babies with deformities in the past. But humans aren't always pragmatic, and our emotions make things 'sticky'.

 No.14388

It was gay.

 No.14375[Reply]

File: 1724211943456.jpg (43.53 KB, 570x570, 1:1, il_570xN.4607296689_c7cp.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What reliable factual evidence exists that getting rid of all the Christians in the world (alongside all of the Jews and Muslims) would make the Earth a better place to live?

What support is there for this claim?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14380

>>14379
Nobody did.

 No.14381

As long as people fear death, spiritual beliefs and religions built around those beliefs will always exist

 No.14385

>Religion throughout human history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY1XpTzLn0A

 No.13482[Reply]

File: 1716550828969.jpg (18.81 KB, 600x400, 3:2, 16CHIEFS-KICKER-SPEECH-mgf….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

<Women are less intelligent than men. That means that women should have jobs that require much less mentally, such as working at home. This also protects men.>

Are all of these claims coming from many American football players the past few days correct? Are they wrong? What factual evidence exists to support these young athletic men's views, if any? Do you think that they're just being silly?
25 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14364

File: 1724165609904.png (465.35 KB, 1590x1710, 53:57, feminized-societies-fail-1….png) ImgOps Google


 No.14365

>>14364
>>14363
Ya know?
People get so hooked up on science and looking at averages and such likes. Honestly, I don't want to waste too much times on facts.

But even if all those "facts" re true, is it beneficial to start gatekeeping aspects of society, because women / black people / ... are supposedly not smart enough?

If I am in urgent need of a medical professional, it seems stupid to go out and say that I want to be helped by a male doctor only. And it seems problematic to refuse women from positions of power because they're not smart enough.
And are we now supposed to ban women from setting policy that affect their lives, because statistically men know better?

 No.14376

>>14365
I'd just like to point out that the American Medical Association used to have a policy in America of working with Jim Crow laws in order to allow medical patients who'd rather suffer than be helped by a black person make that choice.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Is horrifying.

 No.14327[Reply]

File: 1723974750036.jpg (149.54 KB, 769x539, 769:539, rip me.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Looks like I'm going to jail!

 No.14329

I'm with the U.K. government. Broadly speaking. If an individual wants to do any of these things to a victim (or justify it being done by others):

>raping them
>firing them from their jobs
>kicking them out of their homes
>preventing them from voting
>sexually harassing them short of raping them
>forcibly keeping them away from access to medical care
>destroying their personal property
>physically battering them in a non-sexual way

Or such. Well. Like. Yeah. That sounds like a direct threat to social order that requires law enforcement action as well as measures by the judicial system. Modern democracies such as the one in the U.K. are under extreme threat from domestic militants committing extremist acts.

Person A's civil rights and personal liberties end the exact moment that he/she/they actively intends harm to Person B and commits actions as a result of those beliefs. This seems completely reasonable to me. This is the understanding of "rights" that one would have from looking at the intellectual traditions that go back to John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, et al and the Age of Enlightenment. The underlying purpose of government in both theory and practice is to prevent specific forces from using coercing actions to harm others. And so on.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.14335

>>14327

See ya

 No.14325[Reply]

File: 1723931681299.png (622.22 KB, 1080x1098, 60:61, Screenshot_20240817-165928.png) ImgOps Google

Why is Germany committing seppuku?

 No.14330

Americans on both the left and right as well as Canadian on both the left and right appear to be shit-for-brains-ish when it comes to their general opposition to nuclear power. Or so I've read. So, well, the North American types don't really have the ability to criticize the Germans on this without being massively hypocritical.

 No.14295[Reply]

File: 1723339003937.jpg (117.39 KB, 850x1174, 425:587, Smile yoyo.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why is it that transwomen and women get particularly female aggressive with one another?
Why is it that female to males, lesbians, gay males, and straight males get particularly male aggressive with one another?

 No.14296

Are you asking about the the fundamental nature of human aggression?  I don't know if there's an answer for that one.  It's just natural.

 No.14297

File: 1723343163312.jpg (31.58 KB, 750x847, 750:847, FB_IMG_1723312468429.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What exactly is "female aggressive" ?

 No.14305

>>14297
It's when chicks get aggressive with each other solely on the fact that they're both chicks

 No.14169[Reply]

File: 1722861446179.jpg (165.61 KB, 772x767, 772:767, TRUEEEEEE.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Can't help but swallow the blackpill and admit this is probably true

I feel the same way about future tech/implants/bionics etc that allow us humans to stop aging or live much longer or like something that you could mean you no longer need to sleep and things like that

If those kinds of tech or pills or whatever were made do you really think you and I would get to have any of them?

Or do you think only the richest of the rich elites would get control over them and thus get to use them?
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14183

File: 1722896465795.gif (2.1 MB, 498x398, 249:199, Chewing chewing.gif) ImgOps Google

I predict that will a sky rocketing economy and our already currently undermanned military, that the masses will all rush to seek employment through joining the service. We will become like North Korea under the guise of democracy and capitalism, but become just as fucked up as those Red Communists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XxYwWg7F8I  

Time to grab your guns, folks. We've got commies to take care of.

 No.14185

File: 1722904597293.jpeg (11.31 KB, 180x280, 9:14, images.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Nuclear technology was always an amoral tool.

The ethical choice by Western countries in the 1900s (and even mostly now in the 2000s) to use it almost exclusively as a way to kill the most people as efficiently... as a weapon... it's something that may be looked back on quite harshly.

An alternate, say, America exists somewhere in the multiverse that wisely used nuclear power related science to help bring millions out of poverty through smart industrial development.

So it is with AI. Use a tool for good. Or for evil. To build. Or to destroy. It happens because of your own morality. The tool itself is amoral. That's just how it is.

Left hand? Or right hand? What do you choose, looking at the image?

 No.14302

>>14169
Eh, I don't really think so.
I think what we'll get is a 'gig economy' like a fellow I know has coined it.
Which is to say, you use AI when you want general junk. You get a person when you want something personal. Or, really, want to support that person's craft.

Consider it like buying something handmade, instead of the usual chinese factory bulk-built clay guff.
Is it really any better? Honestly, most the time, no. But you pay more for it anyway, just because the person who's crafted it has value to you.

 No.14019[Reply]

Presidents in my life, graded:

>Reagan<
C - Social Issues, B - Economic Issues, B - Foreign Issues [B - Overall]

>Bush Sr.<
A, C, A [A - Overall]

>Clinton<
B, A, B [B - Overall]

>Bush Jr.<
F, F, F [F - Overall]

>Trump<
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14259

>>14186
>>14221
Don't misunderstand me. I get it. Probably would like 'clussy' in my life as well.

 No.14285

Fuck. My negativity killed the thread. Ooopsie.

 No.14287

File: 1723315284940.jpg (27.62 KB, 720x536, 90:67, 4adc0042ffe7abfa8a8abee2ff….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14221
Why is it that our first instinctive thought is to project our own violent nature onto that which we do not understand? For all we know the clown species simply wants to be honked and stuffed into a tiny car with you.

[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]