Why are you like this Veeky Forums? You know that the muslims won't allow any science when they take over?

Why are you like this Veeky Forums? You know that the muslims won't allow any science when they take over?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Locals-hold-peaceful-protest-to-Trump-s-ban-10907780.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-mosque-shooting-what-happened-to-alexandre-bissonnette
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>one axis-politics
>"liberal" as a synonym for "left-wing"

fucking kill me

Because no matter how insane the Far Left gets, it doesn't make the Right's bread and butter economic/environmental/regulatory policies any less retarded.

Now go back to /pol/ and do something productive like getting Trump to declare Antifa a terrorist organization and round up the journalists/celebrities that are giving those terrorists material support.

...

We just gotta teach them again to appreciate science, brah.

But IMO, if you really wanted an conservative place to go, then just do manual labor or truck driver.
Universities have never been a place for conservatives but you can learn there but just stay away from left-wing shit and study your ass off, unlike those faggots that keep blocking roads that can affect the local economy.

Science inherently leans toward a progressive world view. By that, I don't mean any specific issues like gender identity or whatever. I mean in terms of an overall narrative.

People involved in scientific fields are generally used to the idea of the gradual improvement of human inventions. We get better at things as we gain new information, test new ideas, and develop new technology. Viewing human society through this lens leads one to see it as a human invention. That's not to say that it isn't important, human inventions can be extremely vital. But it means that society is something we made, and like everything else that we have ever made, it can be improved. That is the beginning of the progressive view, the idea that no matter how good society is now, it can be made better in some respect.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that a correct answer was acquired at some point in the past, and that society is best served by adhering to that correct answer as closely as possible. What someone else might call "improvement" is to the conservative simply a move away from that correct answer. This often gets wrapped up in religious teachings with the answer being handed down from a divine being via revelation, which is why conservative politics and religion are so often aligned, though not always. In the US, for example, many conservatives believe that the Founding Fathers created in the Constitution a document whose wisdom cannot be matched by any more recent attempt at human governance. For them, the Constitution as originally laid out in 1787 is the correct answer.

While progressives believe that there are gradually better answers stretching forward into the future, conservatives believe that there is a correct answer somewhere in the past. Science, with its tendency toward constant improvement, on average leans toward the progressive view.

Here we find a well thought and well reasoned response to a troll OP.
Still I like your reply: is an actual unbiased and reasonable summary of the two

I'm very glad nobody takes OPs bait and fights him on the claim (given that Islam is more permissive to science than e.g. Christianity), so I'm pointing this out before anybody falls for it.

I'm a centrist.
I'm afraid of holding any political opinion because I'm painfully aware of my own bias and don't trust myself to not be full of shit.

But that is itself a position that is full of shit.

>Science inherently leans toward a progressive world view.

I love how oblivious you are to the history of science.

>well-reasoned

lol

>>I love how oblivious you are to the history of science.
Enlighten us on how 'the history of science' proves right-wing conservatards correct. You have 15 minutes.

Why would they do, ban scientists from sharing their research with the public, threaten to cut research funds of Berkeley by half, or pretend scientific facts don't exist so they can fuck up the climate even more ?
That's crazy, nobody would be retarded enough to do that.

OP BTFO holy shit

>Science inherently leans toward a progressive world view.
Wrong. If scientists were actually truthful about science they'd see most of conservative views actually benefit to create a civilization.

>They'd see most of conservative views actually benefit to create a civilization.
This isn't a logical argument, though, it's a feelings based argument.

Both stances are ridiculous. The assumption that there exists a basis on which to improve society is absurd. Human desire is the only practical aspect on which to form such an idea and it is by its nature subjective. What one considers improvement is not the same as what another considers an improvement. I entirely reject the notion that there is something better to progress towards. As I entirely reject the concept of meaning. The idea that society can and should be improved upon, in whatever respect an individual desires, is inevitably directly at odds with the desires of others. Even within the parties themselves they cannot decide what actions actually constitute improvements. What politicians do today will be called backwards tomorrow, and the very notion that a person believes they are doing what is right at any given moment is a matter of moralist fantasy.

progress doesn't exist without law, order, and freedom, which "progressives" obsessively want to destroy.

>which "progressives" obsessively want to destroy.
[Citation needed]

Taking his absolutely position obviously not, but progressives typically focus on positions of educed military, police and security apparatus. They also tend to baulk at the idea of nationhood (eg Open borders).

The first thing one hears when a left wing protest is resisted by authorities is; "this is what a police state looks like". Whilst it's true that many libertarians also despise a large government, they tend not to actively destroy assets and damage institutions when faced with speakers from across the aisle. This is predominantly found in 'progressive' demonstrations, at least in the west.

>views throwing rocks and punches at people who disagree with them as normal and acceptable
>clear intent of shutting down free speech
>defends leniency to criminals
>simultaneous smear campaign against the police and favoring disarming citizens, both of which directly benefit violent criminals
>complete disrespect to private property, vandalism

I'm sure a society can progress a lot of those sorts of values

>all progressives should be judged by the actions of some antifa retards
I guess all conservatives should be judged by the actions of Timothy McVeigh then?

I'm pretty sure they didn't invent violence.
Unless you're going to argue that, say, Genghis Khan, was a leftist.

Being concerned with heavy handed police tactics isn't the same as wanting less law and order. Brutal tactics aren't necessarily more effective, and many nations that take a much "softer" approach to crime are quite capable of maintaining an orderly society. For example, conservatives often support the use of torture, claiming that while it is brutal it is effective. In truth, there is little evidence supporting its effectiveness in terms of keeping the people safe. Simply increasing violence doesn't necessarily increase safety. In fact, authoritarian regimes and police states are consistently less safe places to live than more progressive democracies.

Before the libs were the ones willing to support science and recognize religion as nonsense. Now with their love of islam things are very confusing.

it isn't the action of a few, it's a widespread agenda publicly defended by people like Hillary and Obama, or are you going to deny they've endorsed BLM rioters? Or are you going to deny "criminal justice reform" doesn't fit exactly the leftist agenda of undermining order and the respect for law and private property? Or are you going to deny omitting themselves in face of illegal immigration is, by the very definition, scorning the law?

Opposing a ban on muslims isn't the same thing as loving islam. You don't have to love something to think it should be legal.

>are you going to deny they've endorsed BLM rioters?
Find me a single statement where either of those people have endorsed rioting and advocated for violence.

Also, it doesn't matter because neither of those people are in power right now.

its not about trumps ban its about the how any criticism of the religion is met with them yelling "racist"

> Or are you going to deny "criminal justice reform" doesn't fit exactly the leftist agenda of undermining order and the respect for law and private property?

The US imprisons the same total number of people as China, despite the fact that they have more than four times the people and are a totalitarian state. Thinking that's a problem doesn't mean you're "undermining order and the respect for law and private property."

But in the examples I've raised it is the protesters being violent. Whether or not your idea is true, the reality is that masked arsonists a met by very restrained police response, and yet still declare it a police state. Bear in mind of course that quite a large of those genuine police states are left-wing. A certain irony there. I would also argue that police states aren't so much an example of law-and-order as they an example of political homogeneity maintained with violence.

Arresting and sentencing a murderer is an example of law and order, and is necessary for societal function. How long and in what conditions the perpetrator serves their time is less relevant than the fact that his arrest is not an example of a police state. Similarly I extend this to bands of violent protesters. It isn't their ideology but their actions that are questionable.

Police states are an authority structure whereby people are jailed not for their actions but their beliefs. I leave it to you to decide whether or not the punitive attempts to dox and fire people for right-wing beliefs by 'progressives' represent a similar type of authoritarian mind set.

Regardless my point is this. Law and order is a structure whereby harmful actions against society can be handled by a third party institution, removing the need for revenge or 'mob justice'. A police state is where political control is maintained by armed enforces. That aren't the same thing.

>Enlighten us on how 'the history of science' proves right-wing conservatards correct

That's not what my post implied, sounds like your reasoning isn't working at all.

What actually looking at the history of science instead of 20 year old trends shows that the political stance of scientists changed pretty radically given the political views of the time.


Yes, leftists have never tried to deny scientific facts. GMOs, nuclear power, anything related to behavioral genetics, never.

>the reality is that masked arsonists a met by very restrained police response, and yet still declare it a police state.
The only reason that the police response is 'restrained' is because of people who cry about police brutality and bring attention to it. Without those people, we'd go back to the 1960s-style Kent State police response to demonstrations.

If it were up to /pol/, they would have all the protesters gunned down. Proof? Go see any /pol/ thread covering the protests and you'll see angry autists idly fantasizing about taking guns

> Without those people, we'd go back to the 1960s-style Kent State police response to demonstrations.
Good. People who want to violently overthrow the society that we rely on to live should be met with the same violence that they wish to perpetrate on others.

Fuck outta here. No planned protest goes in with the intention to be violent. Some jackasses do spoil the fun by tossing a brick in a window or something, but the police cannot overreact. The situation is very volatile and any excessive policing WILL CAUSE a violent riot to break out.

So both police states and protesting against police states are left wing?

Thanks for proving my point.

> the shitskins who burn and loot and kill are blameless, it's policing that causes riots!
This is what liberals actually believe.

> No planned protest goes in with the intention to be violent.
BLM does exactly that.

>shitskins
You have to go back.

Try backing up your assertions with evidence instead of your own personal feelings.

Not him but you didn't back up anything with evidence either lol, you just stated what you think is the case.

> Shitlibs claim that science is inherently progressive
> "What a well-reasoned response!"
> Anyone on the right pokes holes in leftist dogma
> "REEEEEEE GO BACK TO POL GET OUT OF MY SAFE SPACE"

>Fuck outta here. No planned protest goes in with the intention to be violent.

you're either extremely gullible or plain dishonest

You didn't poke holes in anything, if you just want people to agree with you go back to your echo chamber

This
Give me the reports and statistics. Individual instances of violence don't count.

I don't follow any ideology so I would be in the middle. However, I am a realist so my positions largely overlap with Trump's. Thus such a survey would not work as you probably intend on people like me.

Do you have a shred of proof for your claim? Memos, documents, court dispositions stating that BLM has an explicit organizational goal of inciting riots? Anything?

Or are you just arguing based on your emotions again?

You're the one claiming that they didn't go in intending violence. You prove it. The fact that they always end up being violent is all the proof we need to show that it's intentional.

>give me statistics about black blocs being violent

really?

>The fact that they always end up being violent is all the proof we need to show that it's intentional.
That's not how the legal system works retard, there's a reason there's a difference between manslaughter and murder in the first degree.

have you ever been to a protest? it's part of the strategy to provoke the police, fabricate incidents to gather popular support through victimization

All your /pol/ gibberish is disingenuous and irrelevant to the discussion. The idea that we would revert to some point the past is mere conjecture, many societies maintain strong police presence with out gunning people down.

For example Japan has a highly lawful society with low crime rates. It also has an unusual methodology of Kobans - local micro-stations staffed by a few officers dealing with a tiny jurisdiction. They are personally responsible not only for law enforcement, but minor matters 'you go to Koban when you lose your phone' was how it was explained to me. The process of law and order is community integrated. By your reduction argumentation such elements should have led to widespread police shootings and violence, but it does not. However I don't doubt that masked thugs thugs beating people with poles would be arrested immediately by Japanese law enforcement.

The truth is as I stated before, law and order and police states aren't the same thing. You just confuse hooliganism with demonstration.

> legal system
We're not in a court designed to help liberal trial lawyers leech taxpayer dollars. If someone is violent 100% of the time, any reasonable person would conclude that they intend to be violent. Prove they didn't go in intending to be violent.

>w-we dont need lawz n shit, dey is guilty
Proof of premeditation of violence at an institutional level requires proof of organizational intent and malice aforethought.

/pol/ is really the dumbest board on Veeky Forums, goddamn.

how about the thousands of videos freely available on the internet showing left-wing "protesters" cursing and spitting on the police, throwing trash on the street, throwing rock, molotovs, breaking into banks and stores?

>explicit organizational goal

why would criminals be explicit about supporting criminals, of course they pretend it has nothing to do with them you stupid fuck

He can't. They wear black masks, routinely hit people in the back of the head and actively destroy buildings wholly unrelated to the cause of their 'ire'. The violence is a manifestation of their perceived failure in life looking for something to blame.

>how about the thousands of videos freely available on the internet showing left-wing "protesters" cursing and spitting on the police, throwing trash on the street, throwing rock, molotovs, breaking into banks and stores?

That doesn't prove that any of that was planned ahead of time. You're using circular reasoning.

If 100% of your "protests" end up resulting in riots, and you go out and "protest" anyway, you're intentionally starting a riot. It's called common sense, you should try it some time.

> It's called common sense,
Not an argument.

Unfortunately for everyone, when an officer takes off their uniform they look just like a civilian.
In this way, the po can make a peaceful protest into a violent one, and then arrest anyone there.
The difference between "law and order" and civil war is an ambiguous thing.

> Science inherently leans toward a progressive world view.
Science is the arena of reason and intellect, which are inherently conservative. Irrational emotion and violence in the face of dissenting opinions are all you "progressives" are capable of. Name a single scientist of note who subscribed to your bankrupt ideology.

yeah, like they happened to be there at the time and suddenly had the urge to do those things.

Stephen Hawking, shit that was easy.

Linus Pauling

really easy, /pol/ is dumb as hell

Literally a cripple meme. Got anyone actually important?

No true scotsman fallacy, get the fuck out of here /pol/.

>reason and intellect, which are inherently conservative.
this is what /pol/ ACTUALLY BELIEVES

> Linus Pauling
> Linus "Vitamin C and dietary supplements cure cancer" Pauling
> Scientist
This is what liberals actually believe.

>100% of the protests turn into full-blown riots

Wrong

>Nobel Prize in chemistry
>not a scientist of note
gtfo /pol/esmoker, see

That's a fairly conspiratorial way to look at it. Police in most of the western world focus more on traffic violations than anything (revenue raising). Given that a large amount of fairly violent literature exists from the left, and revolution most certainly is a driver for the harder end of the left, it seems to me that the police wouldn't have to invent violence. 'Be ungovernable' isn't just limited to a few, the mantra is scrawled on placards and signs through out those protests.

The gestation of the mindset is evident in the psyche of the hard left, a society ought to be divided and unstable in order for the revolution to occur.

Show me a leftist "protest" that isn't just a riot dressed up by the lying media to give it the appearance of legitimacy.

Why, so you can just no true scotsman again? Face your biases and stop acting as if you don't have a conclusion that you'll cherry pick any evidence to shoehorn your narrative into.

Five seconds with google
m.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Locals-hold-peaceful-protest-to-Trump-s-ban-10907780.php

>That's a fairly conspiratorial way to look at it.
Really dude? You've never heard of the concept of an 'agent provocateur'?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Something remarkable precisely because it is unusual. The left doesn't need such things to behave violently, it's an inherent part of their ideology.

Hello where are the proofs?

>get btfo with examples of the very concept you were denying existed
>W-WELL IT D-DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT OFTEN ANYWAYS
whatever dude

I've heard of it, but you flatter yourself if you think intelligence service is bothered by bog-standard campus thuggery enough to want to 'set you up'. The violence that occurs is consistent with the hard-left ideology, blaming it on the police misses the point, this is what people are suppose to do if they join an antifa movement. Being all 'the popo did it' is just as naive as when an autismal sprays up a mosque or black church.

It's consistent with the ideological rhetoric, the cops needn't do anythign as you're both your own worst enemy.

why does /pol leave their echo chamber to get BTFO every time? It's almost hilarious

Why are you assuming I'm a leftist simply because I'm familiar with the concept of an agent provocateur?

You're pathetic, go back to your containment board

>f you think intelligence service is bothered by bog-standard campus thuggery enough to want to 'set you up
By the way, it's not "intelligence services" that do this, it's local police departments, if you actually read the wikipedia article.

That /pol/tard who just recently shot up a mosque in Quebec killing 6 innocent people, I suppose he was just another of the peaceful non-violent right wing ideology?

>you are a fucking idiot

You're reduced to ad hominem. I simply despise extremist thugs. When a white nationalist guns down a church the pollacks squeal false flag. When black blocs beat with poles its all 'agent provocateur'. When I read both sides literature much of it advocates violence in pursuit of a Utopian goal.

Surely you can see the remarkable resemblance.

> That /pol/tard who just recently shot up a mosque in Quebec
> /pol/tard
The shooter was a muslim from Morocco.

Lol he was a part of the hyper-violent right wing. Why do you presume I like them. Truth is thugs are thugs, and further out you go ideologically the more common they are.

Next you'll be telling me hitler was clearly much worse than stalin because reasons.

this guy is a muslim from morocco?

lol no one can seriously believe the antifa, the blm & co. aren't violent, that all that vandalism and aggression is a product of infiltration by local police departments bothering to entice a ideological battle. It's retarded, no one is this gullible, stop pretending.

montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-mosque-shooting-what-happened-to-alexandre-bissonnette
That other guy you're talking about was a witness.

>i-i'm not /pol/ I swear!
Really, just go back

>pure ideology.

No one is retarded as you are, correct. Try actually reading the sticky on your own containment board before you come here and shit up Veeky Forums

You have to go back now.

Thats it, thats all you've got. Names. I point out that extreme ideologies produce violent movements, both currently and historically. And yet all you can do is squeal /pol/. This is Veeky Forums m9, i cant make you feel uncomfortable about your present schema all day long.

>getting this triggered about someone recognizing what board you came from
Why are you so defensive?

That's just the fall guy. Until the cucknadian government stepped in, it was being reported that the shooter was a moroccan muslim. Of course that looked bad for Trudeau right after he criticized Trump, so they threw together a story about it being someone from /pol/ to fit the antifa narrative.

there's nothing difficult to understand about your stupid theory, it's just plain stupid and detached from the real world. As the other user said, you're exactly like /pol/tards who rush to claim a right-wing terrorist attack is merely a false-flag.

You sound legit crazy

I'm not - I'm highly amused. Now you're just replying for the sake having text under mine, you haven't made a coherent point in at least 4 posts now.

Since we're now at the 'lever myself out of trouble with rhetorical questions' stage of this pseudo-intellectual farce, allow me. Does saying /pol/ alot make you feel better?