- Joined
- Nov 12, 2025
- Posts
- 2,907
- Reputation
- 5,847
Im gonna leave out the racebait at the beginning it was just trolling anyways look at
sensitive sapphire's thread for that
First he asked me a question about my stance on (non-muslim) immigration
I was asked by him to give my opinion and so I did
In summary, (interracial/interethnic) immigration is always bad for a nation because it alters the ethnos, which is a nation's foundation.
Thats an opinion, there are other worldviews that for example argue a nation can also be based on a demos alone (civic nationalism) without concerns regarding ethnicity.
He instantly called me racist and again said he wasnt talking about muslims (cool ig who tf cares if theyre muslims?)
"Youre wrong about that"
*proceeds to not give any reason or argument why*
I say there is no wrong since opinions are subjective and cannot be ruled to be right or wrong objectively
"Some opinions are wrong" (logically impossible, hes too retarded to be able to differentiate between opinion and statement)
"Democracy is an(d) illusion"
Never even mentioned democracy, im probably the most antidemocratic guy here
He argues that because others cant control their race all the consequences of them being whatever race they are should be ignored
"No [to race realism,] we of all people should know that nobody had control over what they look like this is just racism"
Retarded take, race is not just about skin or even phenotype, lack of control doesnt prove or justify anything
Coping with racism as buzzword
Yes niggers are retarded and dont have the capability to live up to white society
He calls that racism but his sandnigger ass never experienced this en masse
This id not just based on myself as anecdote but also on what we know about intelligence and neurological differences
Me pointing out there was no mention of democracy and that opinions cannot be wrong
He thinks democracy is when opinions cant be wrong (simple logical conclusion)
As counterargument against "opinions cant be wrong" he brings up that a muslim can believe in the marriage of a 9yo with a muslim (reffering to aisha most likely), completely misses the point that factual truth/lack thereof and moral right/wrong are two seperate concepts
He even claims otherwise
What is factual?
Factual is something that can objectively be proven/is objectively true
Neither right nor wrong in the sense of truth xan apply to an opinion as those are just subjective statements of one's stance on a certain topic and dont involve claims that could be untrue. If so, the claim is seperate from the opinion
Considering the moral question
Its still not necessarily wrong since
a subjective morality has no authority beyond the subject itself, I cannot apply my morality onto others as its not superior to theirs in any way
b objective morality would first have to be consensually agreed upon for him to make an "isnt this morally wrong" argument
This doesnt matter anyways because he specifically claims its factually wrong ("how is it not factually wrong?")
So believing in the marriage of 9yo children, which i assume means supporting it rather than just believing in it's existence, is not inherently wrong. Its neither wrong factually, which is what the whole point was, nor morally as long as no objective morality (one given by a higher authority) has been agreed upon or atleast the moral-giver's supremacy has been acknowledged
He is also obviously not aware of the basic logical and philosophical concept of burden of proof, which is upon him (since as it's original latin name says(translated), "the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies". Clearly I am the one who denies the positive claim, which is that the mentioned opinion is wrong).
For no claim he made there was any argument or proof given, and what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
The emotional cucking is insane though, muh you hurt my feelings

grow tf up nigger I was trolling at the start but in the end he actually pissed me off so much
Just to correct the retards in his thread's reply section
broodal 124iq mog

First he asked me a question about my stance on (non-muslim) immigration
I was asked by him to give my opinion and so I did
In summary, (interracial/interethnic) immigration is always bad for a nation because it alters the ethnos, which is a nation's foundation.
Thats an opinion, there are other worldviews that for example argue a nation can also be based on a demos alone (civic nationalism) without concerns regarding ethnicity.
He instantly called me racist and again said he wasnt talking about muslims (cool ig who tf cares if theyre muslims?)
"Youre wrong about that"
*proceeds to not give any reason or argument why*
I say there is no wrong since opinions are subjective and cannot be ruled to be right or wrong objectively
"Some opinions are wrong" (logically impossible, hes too retarded to be able to differentiate between opinion and statement)
"Democracy is an(d) illusion"
Never even mentioned democracy, im probably the most antidemocratic guy here
He argues that because others cant control their race all the consequences of them being whatever race they are should be ignored
"No [to race realism,] we of all people should know that nobody had control over what they look like this is just racism"
Retarded take, race is not just about skin or even phenotype, lack of control doesnt prove or justify anything
Coping with racism as buzzword
Yes niggers are retarded and dont have the capability to live up to white society
He calls that racism but his sandnigger ass never experienced this en masse
This id not just based on myself as anecdote but also on what we know about intelligence and neurological differences
Me pointing out there was no mention of democracy and that opinions cannot be wrong
He thinks democracy is when opinions cant be wrong (simple logical conclusion)
As counterargument against "opinions cant be wrong" he brings up that a muslim can believe in the marriage of a 9yo with a muslim (reffering to aisha most likely), completely misses the point that factual truth/lack thereof and moral right/wrong are two seperate concepts
He even claims otherwise
What is factual?
Factual is something that can objectively be proven/is objectively true
Neither right nor wrong in the sense of truth xan apply to an opinion as those are just subjective statements of one's stance on a certain topic and dont involve claims that could be untrue. If so, the claim is seperate from the opinion
Considering the moral question
Its still not necessarily wrong since
a subjective morality has no authority beyond the subject itself, I cannot apply my morality onto others as its not superior to theirs in any way
b objective morality would first have to be consensually agreed upon for him to make an "isnt this morally wrong" argument
This doesnt matter anyways because he specifically claims its factually wrong ("how is it not factually wrong?")
So believing in the marriage of 9yo children, which i assume means supporting it rather than just believing in it's existence, is not inherently wrong. Its neither wrong factually, which is what the whole point was, nor morally as long as no objective morality (one given by a higher authority) has been agreed upon or atleast the moral-giver's supremacy has been acknowledged
He is also obviously not aware of the basic logical and philosophical concept of burden of proof, which is upon him (since as it's original latin name says(translated), "the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies". Clearly I am the one who denies the positive claim, which is that the mentioned opinion is wrong).
For no claim he made there was any argument or proof given, and what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
The emotional cucking is insane though, muh you hurt my feelings


grow tf up nigger I was trolling at the start but in the end he actually pissed me off so much
Just to correct the retards in his thread's reply section
broodal 124iq mog




