The boo-jua-see are a bigger threat than Muslims

I don't see why Holla Forumstards and robots don't adore Islamic fundamentalism. They basically want the west to be like Saudi Arabia.

what did he mean by this?

also

reminder that Hitler wanted germsn t be muslims ora at least more like them

according to Holla Forums Merkel is doing Hitlers work

The fuck is a boojuasee?

...

They want wimminz to know their place as man-pleasers and baby machines. They bitch about 'degeneracy' constantly and are obsesses with some notion of 'purity'. The Islamic and Western far-right are alike in that they're both humongous moralfaggots who want to tell everyone else what they can and can't do.

The boo-jua-see were the ones who funded batshit Muslims so batshit to begin with. Just look at the Gulf States.

...

...

/thread

Protagoras, not everything is relative.

This is why the far-right knows islam better than leftists. Leftists simply lack the ability of perspective, and so they will believe muslims on their word.

They do. Islam has been at war with life itself since its inception

AKA i no understand you so i'm logically tm correct

Since arguments rely solely on their persuasive power to be seen as valid or not, and persuasive power relies solely on our feels, every argument relies on the emotionial value of the words being used.

Materialism leaves no room for objectivity.

waste of trips tbh.
Emotion is not the only thing humans run on, user. If you meant persuasion, you could have said persuasion, in which case- you are right, but given that humans have mixed emotions, they are still capable of arriving to a conclusion given time that largely disregards strong emotive content though not all.

Essentially, good arguments are usually in the long run more emotionally compelling, so it doesn't make a difference- it still doesn't give you an excuse to make such obviously bad arguments.

Ewwwwwwwwww

So does that mean countries should kick people like you out as well?

This is only true if you are incapable of comparing what the other person claims to your experience with and understanding of reality

bourgeoisie dummy

It's not a matter of what we "run on", whatever that might mean. Our ability to reason doesn't translate in a detached concept of reason that leads to objectivity, or any other state in which the validity of an argument is not determined by the workings of our mind/brain, but instead by a separate concept. Reason doesn't have a bottom, so asking for arguments for a position can only lead to a spiral leading to a point at which logic breaks down, reason itself therefor needs a foundation that doesn't follows reason's own rules.

um ok

Is irrelevant. I don't need fully detached reason to know that you are making a shitty argument. Don't talk nonsense.

No, it doesn't. Read Kant. Intuitions are a thing shared by everyone, for example.

You need fully detached reason to have reasoning be something else than a compromise by all the states that form it. This doesn't do away with reason, it only recognises that there are states that precede it, that it isn't this pure concept which exists in opposition with emotion, that in fact needs emotion to exist at all.

I only read a small bit of Kant, and what I read seemed pretty shallow.

1: The Bourgeoisie aren't a threat, they're parasites that proles have long adapted to support.

2:Any conservatism is hopeless in a world dictated by dialectical materialism, even more so in one where production and consumption are as growingly efficient as they currently are, muslim fundamentalism and western traditionalism alike won't last 20 years into the internet age where porn, short-term relationships and other vehicles for fun are so widespread and accessible, though-crime is close to ended.
case in point: youtube.com/watch?v=37NvyfKyOu4

...

How about wars caused by Islamism? It's hard to say what causes a war.