The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[BundouYMB]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

[politicus]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

Arguing "Ad Hitlerum" I see, never a good sign.

Calling Stonehenge a "pile of rocks" is like saying Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground in Arizona". It may be true on one level, but it completely misses the point - it is a direct link to our ancestors, a view back in history and a magical place. And you can never recreate something like the Taj Mahal or the church of St. Peter, Hagia Sofia etc. Maybe a faint and hollow replica, but that is all.

I think you lack perspective - individuals life for a short time - while the great masterpieces of art and architecture can inspire and enjoy countless generations. People have died to safe cultural treasures from destruction in fires and during war, and rightfully so. Culture is not "dead" it is life, beauty, happiness and inspiration. Of course only a very small part is so to a degree where it is more important than something as precious as a human life, but there surely are things that are.

[BundouYMB]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

Arguing "Ad Hitlerum" I see, never a good sign.

Calling Stonehenge a "pile of rocks" is like saying Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground in Arizona". It may be true on one level, but it completely misses the point - it is a direct link to our ancestors, a view back in history and a magical place. And you can never recreate something like the Taj Mahal or the church of St. Peter, Hagia Sofia etc. Maybe a faint and hollow replica, but that is all.

I think you lack perspective - individuals life for a short time - while the great masterpieces of art and architecture can inspire and enjoy countless generations. People have died to safe cultural treasures from destructions in fires and during war, and rightfully so. Culture is not "death" it is life, beauty, happiness and inspiration. Of course only a very small part is so to a degree where it is more important than human something as precious as a human life, but there surely are things that are.

You think the difference between human beings and rocks is how long they last. Got it. You clearly have empathy in spades and have such a great historical perspective on this. Devastating rebuke of my argument.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The impulse to physically destroy the past utterly is usually linked to the impulse to murder all who do not fit in: the systematic destruction of ancient sites by ISIS and their dreams of genocide are part of the same terrifying package. Year Zero is a terrible terrible thing to see declared and you should be very worried whenever it happens.

[BundouYMB]

The impulse to physically destroy the past utterly is usually linked to the impulse to murder all who do not fit in: the systematic destruction of ancient sites by ISIS and their dreams of genocide are part of the same terrifying package. Year Zero is a terrible terrible thing to see declared and you should be very worried whenever it happens.

Alright, I'll bite. What's your point? It's politicus who said human life was worth less than historic sites, which is more than a casual link between their beliefs and murder. Also, I'm not proposing destroying Stonehenge. I said if I had the choice between killing someone and tearing Stonehenge down I'd be out at three a.m in a wife-beater dragging rocks.

[Hifly]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

[politicus]

This is pretty old news. Besides, I care more for every human life that these bastards have taken than for some old temple, regardless of how beautiful it was.

Loss of human life is terrible, but cultural heritage can never be replaced, while new humans are born all the time. Some parts of our heritage are more important than a single individual. Even if it is an odd calculation.

Why is that absurd?

Something like Stonehenge or Taj Mahal is clearly worth more to humanity than a single human being.

I admire your contributions in the international elections board but your politics are literally the worst. Piles of rocks have no inherent value. Those buildings might be pretty, or educational, or inspirational, but at the end of the day its rocks. They’re not conscious. They’re inanimate objects, politicus. You can build a new piles of rocks or even put the same ones back together. It blows my mind that anyone on God’s green earth can weight a real human being in one hand and a useless pile of rocks like Stonehenge in the other and say the latter is somehow more worthy of existing than the latter.

In a different time and place you’d be the most rabid of nazis. After all, Hitler built so many pretty buildings, and had such a great respect for German heritage. You have no empathy and no perspective.

Arguing "Ad Hitlerum" I see, never a good sign.

Calling Stonehenge a "pile of rocks" is like saying Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground in Arizona". It may be true on one level, but it completely misses the point - it is a direct link to our ancestors, a view back in history and a magical place. And you can never recreate something like the Taj Mahal or the church of St. Peter, Hagia Sofia etc. Maybe a faint and hollow replica, but that is all.

I think you lack perspective - individuals life for a short time - while the great masterpieces of art and architecture can inspire and enjoy countless generations. People have died to safe cultural treasures from destructions in fires and during war, and rightfully so. Culture is not "death" it is life, beauty, happiness and inspiration. Of course only a very small part is so to a degree where it is more important than human something as precious as a human life, but there surely are things that are.

You think the difference between human beings and rocks is how long they last. Got it. You clearly have empathy in spades and have such a great historical perspective on this. Devastating rebuke of my argument.

How many people they influence; how greatly they influence them; and how much they potentially can influence and inspire future generations. All of which are obviously in one way or another connected to how long they last.

[Tender Branson]

Context needed:

You mean people like Tender?

[Maxwell]

Schumer is the Democratic John McCain.

In all honesty, he shouldn't be "purged". Who replaces him? DeBlasio, the Democrat so extreme he's unelectable in New York? Cuomo, who is just as "corrupt" as Schumer? DiNapoli, who could lose to Christopher Cox?

Holy , I didn't usually deluge analysis, but this one is particularly retarded and not based in reality.

[Figueira]

Cathcon's a nice person and a good poster, but this is a bad post:

Pro-choice atheist. HP.

[Хahar 🤔]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

I see nothing at all objectionable about this post. The notion that the Austrians were the first victims of Nazism is deeply pernicious in a very obvious way.

[Mr. Smith]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

I see nothing at all objectionable about this post. The notion that the Austrians were the first victims of Nazism is deeply pernicious in a very obvious way.

Don't bother with him.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

I see nothing at all objectionable about this post. The notion that the Austrians were the first victims of Nazism is deeply pernicious in a very obvious way.

the idea that de-Nazification would have had any effect on reducing present day anti-immigrant sentiment makes sense to you?

[Хahar 🤔]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

I see nothing at all objectionable about this post. The notion that the Austrians were the first victims of Nazism is deeply pernicious in a very obvious way.

the idea that de-Nazification would have had any effect on reducing present day anti-immigrant sentiment makes sense to you?

Yes, it does. Extreme anti-foreign statements are far less common in German political discourse than in that of neighboring countries, and this has a lot to do with that sort of thing being considered outside the pale in Germany. You may or may not consider that a good thing, but it's there.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Classic maxque

The ÖVP did an internal poll the last few days in Upper Austria, about which topic is most debated among voters right now and in their families:

3/4 said "immigration/refugees"

Just 6% said "labour/unemployment".

This election will turn into an epic disaster for ÖVP-SPÖ, if these numbers are true ...

Like I said earlier, it's a glaring failure than Allies failed to de-nazify Austria, like they did with Germany.

I see nothing at all objectionable about this post. The notion that the Austrians were the first victims of Nazism is deeply pernicious in a very obvious way.

the idea that de-Nazification would have had any effect on reducing present day anti-immigrant sentiment makes sense to you?

Yes, it does. Extreme anti-foreign statements are far less common in German political discourse than in that of neighboring countries, and this has a lot to do with that sort of thing being considered outside the pale in Germany. You may or may not consider that a good thing, but it's there.

And this difference between Germany and Austria is the accomplishment of the inconsistently applied and deeply unpopular Allied measures in Germany attempted for a few years after the war?  Wow.

[DavidB.]

MaxQue might have been wrong in specifically saying that the Allies failed to denazify Austria, but Xahar and MaxQue are certainly right in saying that the FPÖ's popularity is directly related to the popularity of the nazis in Austria's past - the FPÖ knows this as well and uses this for its own benefit in campaigns. "Die Soziale Heimatpartei", one of the party's slogans, basically says as much as "lol we're nazis". Pretty distasteful.

I don't think Germany's successful denazification has been caused by the Allies. Germany simply did more introspection than Austria because there was no possible way to ignore its dirty past, whereas for Austria, the "first victim" myth came in handy - this enabled Austria not to do as much introspection as Germany did, leading to the continuation of the popularity of a particular kind of branding of Austrian nativist sentiments rooted in its national socialist past.

Tl;dr: MaxQue's comment doesn't deserve a nomination to this topic.

[Hifly]

I'm not saying he should have been arrested or suspended, he clearly shouldn't be, but it was kind of funking stupid for him to bring a clock that looks oddly bomb like to school on Sep 11th.  Being a Muslim makes it an even worse idea.

[politicus]

This one is for my "Willips Brighton Memorial Gallery of Cruel and Insensitive Posts", but since some anonymous mod (no one has ever admitted to it) merged it into this one I have to put it here:

About Joan Rivers:

HP, I'm glad she's dead.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Came here to post that.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Huge FF, the Rosa Parks of 2015 (completely serious).

[Blair]

and No a Moslem shouldnt be president.

[Joe Republic]

It begins with a barracuda killing Nemo's mother and siblings, then has him kidnapped and taken to a strange place, then has Marlin and Dory being chased by sharks, then has them get stung by jellyfish, then has them swallowed by a whale.  To top it all off, Nemo and the others in the aquarium are tortured by a little girl.  If that's not scary, then I don't know what is.

[politicus]

There is no such thing as a funny political cartoon.

[Хahar 🤔]

Anyone who kills 100,000s of people by giving the clearance to drop two atomic bombs over hugely populated cities is not a liberal by my standards. That far, far worse than anything Hitler did by definition. The easier solution would have been to simply kill the Japanese emperor, yet that was a way too sophisticated idea for Truman at the time (probably he didn't have the mental capacity to come up with it either).

Hitler > Truman

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who kills 100,000s of people by giving the clearance to drop two atomic bombs over hugely populated cities is not a liberal by my standards. That far, far worse than anything Hitler did by definition. The easier solution would have been to simply kill the Japanese emperor, yet that was a way too sophisticated idea for Truman at the time (probably he didn't have the mental capacity to come up with it either).

Hitler > Truman

i don't even