ToHellWithMe

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

184 Excellent

About ToHellWithMe

  • Rank
    Skeptic

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    -
  • More About Me
    -

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    -

Recent Profile Visitors

1,437 profile views
  1. No data, just an opinion. I think Columbine etc certainly did trigger copycats, but I also think oversaturation is a thing. There are already enough cases to introduce the spree killing concept to those who are attracted to it. Can't put the genie back in the bottle. Having seen the Christchurch shooting video, I personally don't think it can attract as much as it will just show how empty and meaningless the whole act is. But that's just my guess, of course. Still, I hope you can see at least my principle, that if it's possible to portray an incident in a way that whets up people's appetites, it's also possible to dispel any magic and help the angry folks see there wouldn't be much glory in that course of action after all.
  2. That's right. They're proudly revealing their true colors. Could be way worse if they hid it like nazis hid genocide from the masses who likely wouldn't accept it. I guess there are ways to use the fear they command thanks to their reputation, and there might be some who are attracted precisely to their savagery, but I bet there are many more who decide to steer very clear of ISIS recruiters thanks to their public image.
  3. I dunno if it matters unless it truly is an additional impetus to commit the act in the first place. If they'd do it anyway, I can only see it as a good thing that they at least document it properly.
  4. That's a common argument, but nowadays it doesn't tug my heartstrings at all. I mean there are enough examples already, so I don't think this is going to inspire anyone who isn't already inspired. I even think there's an argument to be made for living the experience through his video and not feeling the need anymore because the guy already fulfilled it for you and what's left is you just get to see him go rot in jail forever. Mostly it's just my distaste for denying information. Nobody knows what the real effect is and it's pretty arrogant to decide for others.
  5. U gotta be critical to learn from mistakes. Yours or anyones.
  6. I wouldn't call streaming it necessarily bad. And definitely not the sharing of it. Now that the stuff is out there, it should be used. There were lessons to be learnt in the video. Like one glaring failure to escape and how that guy should have tried to tackle the shooter instead of thinking he could just run and get away.
  7. Tulsi Gabbard seems like another popular, sensible dem. I wonder if having two underdogs splitting the non-establishment vote between them will only work against the non-establishment faction. Then again I have no idea how exactly the primary election works.
  8. We don't truly choose our beliefs. Just recognize yours and accept them as a fact. Fighting off doubts as a Christian is just as unfruitful.
  9. If he was converted by a single sermon, that sounds so flimsy there might be a chance he flips back again, (and again). Dream sounds a bit deeper, as it originates from his own subconscious. Some dreams can be very profound and make you think. If it made him realize he was being foolishly hopeful about, say, gradually changing your worldview, and wasting time because of it, then that mindset might be harder to revert. If you wanna land him regardless, maybe you have to offer him that hope, lol.
  10. Yeah, the basic income experiment in Finland proved not to solve the participants' unemployment. In fact, the results seem unexpectedly bad. The experiment guaranteed a sum equivalent to basic unemployment benefit (560€/month) for the 2000 randomly chosen unemployed people forced to participate. What is more, unlike the normal unemployment benefit one would more or less lose upon finding a paying job, the participants' basic income was fully paid on top of any other earnings. Result was a near-zero difference with the control group. The participants worked, on average, for 0.39 more days per year than the control group. 49.64 days vs. 49.25 days per year. Getting employed would still impact their housing benefits, which is up to 320€/month, and various other smaller benefits as the basic income effectively just replaced one or two of the typical benefits. Still, I had hoped it would alleviate the dilemma of getting a job vs. losing your benefits more than it actually managed to. The experiment would probably yield a very different result if there were zero or very few other benefits available, which usually is the idea when universal basic income is discussed, as it is meant to replace the complex welfare system riddled with traps and disincentives.
  11. The image below shows the proposed changes to the law source of the image above I googled the significance for the change of 'must' to 'shall' in the last clause (3.) and it seems that in legalese, 'shall' means 'may'. Many mainstream news articles seem to contest the use of the word "infanticide", calling it fake news, but that clause makes me wonder if they can say that only because the delivered baby in this case would not be classified as an infant but as 'product of such abortion' as per clause 3. Therefore, euthanizing the baby would not be infanticide, but, in legal fact, abortion.
  12. You shouldn't. Being seen as a troll is inavoidable. Perhaps what you do is what being a troll mostly is: certain personality traits make it so that it's natural to approach a topic from both extremes, and people with opposing personality traits might detest it, as is their right. The bigger man will just suck it up and deal with it.
  13. I'm not sure such benefit of doubt is relevant now. They're trying to downplay the proposed legislation when it's already been admitted that, in some cases, the 'abortion' would actually be performed after birth. That's something that really needs to be openly on the table. Also, they admitted one legitimate reason for such 'abortions' is that the baby is a threat to the mother's mental health. Can't forgive trying to brush that under the carpet either. If the representatives I voted for used such shady methods, I'd be fucking furious. I mean it'd reflect badly upon me as well if I'd ever publicly advocated for them.
  14. Goes to show yet again that Snopes is a partisan site and will distract from the primary issue when it serves their political interests. The main issue here isn't some random alleged method of abortion. Yet that's all what Snopes has fact-checked. Just like they fact-checked something minor about the Covington Catholic while the obviously more critical facts (like which party initiated the iconic confrontation between the smirking MAGA hat boy and the Native American drummer) was never something Snopes was interested in setting straight.
  15. They certainly do call other feminists out when they're not on the side of trans people or if they're critical of current feminism going too far left or too crazy. So there's that. Can't expect them to call out the ones erring in the other direction as well. That'd be way too much trouble. It's sometimes easier to just ignore, yeah.