By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 29 June 2017
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
Slimebeast said:

Okay, you completely ignored my post, but this line was too freaking funny:

"My tribe good. Your tribe bad. Me no like tribes mixing. Me scared, now me angry".

Why are you doing this?! I'm falling out of my chair!!

 "Me scared, now me angry" LOL  that's just so brilliant

I'm saying don't delude yourself into thinking you're being intellectual here. A chimpanzee would have no frame of reference for things like art, technology, science etc., but they would understand the concept of being afraid of/hating "other tribes" 100%, lol. They totally get that. We are very much alike with them (sadly) in this regard. 

That's a basic, primitive line of reasoning at its core, you can put all the lipstick on that pig you want, it's still a pig. 

It would be interesting to talk about this topic, about human motivation and what are the true drivers for our opinions and whether it's true that we're far more primitive than we believe. This happens to be something I've thought about a lot, and I'm very well aware of this view. 

But you mixed two things with each other: the formal way of discussion with the opinion on a subject, and you ended up misrepresenting me a bit unfairly.

1. I have an argument with the-pi-guy where I claim that Trump is hated for his conservative agenda rather than his flawed persona, and I claim that globalist powers have an interest in destabilizing traditional institutions and values in the West, in order to reach their ultimate goal. 

2. We end up in confusion about the word "destabilize" and I unfortunately then accuse him of unintellectual argumentation, drawing a parallel to the Swedish migration debate. I see in hindsight now that Pi-guys usage of destabilize is more accurate and therefore my accusation was wrong.

3. When I expressed my frustration about people using unintellectual arguments, it concerned the form of discussion, not the content of the topic being discussed. We all want to uphold an intellectual level of discussion using intelligent, coherent, logically stringent arguments.

4. I didn't claim that my deep motives and opinions about a certain topic, like nationalism or immigration, are intellectually based. We didn't touch that angle at all here. So whether or not that's actually the case is for another discussion. But you sort of went ahead and declared that I have "primitive reasoning at the core".