(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Which do you think is better and why?

Personally, I prefer the far right because I value de jure freedom over de facto equality. The latter is simply not practical, whereas the former is, in theory, the position of the United States (supported by the Constitution).

Also, I prefer tradition over change. Change is not some kind of inherently good thing--there is such thing as bad change. Social Darwinism is also a much better policy than multiculturalism. I also like the idea of private charity more than public welfare, as I like the ability to delegate which individuals/causes my money goes to instead of trusting the government.

trolldetected.jpg

I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

You're implying that you've ever dignified any of my posts with a legitimate answer. No, it's all been cheap shots.

I find it quite interesting that the far right is preferred so much here. Usually--in my experience, anyway--forums regarding technology tend to be more to the left.

So you reply to my post with another cheap shot. Seriously, grow up.

Are you 12? Look at all your replies. There was not even an attempt to argue, just giggling. All unwarranted. All ignorant. I'm not being "cheap" by stating the obvious. If you think you're an intellectual or that your beliefs have any foundation, then I think it's time to do some justification--which, if you're too dense to understand, is beyond just saying "grow up" or giggling.

The burden of truth is on you, and you're doing nothing to support your argument. You're just going around derailing my topic and being a stereotypical troll. Seriously, you grow up. And don't just answer this with another moronic comment with no support or you'll lose any credibility you may once have held. I can't take you or your side of the "argument" seriously. If you're not going to justify your claims, just do everyone a favor and don't reply.

I'm the one who believes there is nothing there, if anyone needs to justify its you. Everything you have posted has said I've had nothing to support my claims, what do you have? You have a ancient book written by people who didn't even know gravity existed. Not to mention the fact that the book was written 80 years after the events. If you want to properly argue this with me, get in the God vs Fact thread and put something forward. Not a silly little stab at me.

Agreed but Nazi is a political group... Fascism is the correct term for the Nazis. Like communism for the Soviets. Same thing just different fields of the spectrum. And I strongly dislike the fact that people follow certain parties, that one reason politicians never agree with anything is the fact that partisans want them to stay with the ideas from that party.

And this is were we are today. Having a touch of everything would be nice. A bit of Capitalism and a bit of Socialism. Instead its either a whole lot of Socialism or a whole lot of Capitalism, but I do tend to follow the republican party for the sake of voting when I turn 18.

What are you talking about? I said Nazism for a reason. If I meant Fascism I would have said it. The Nazis based their Aryan Race idea and Antisemitism on Social Darwinism.

That's just it--you're asserting that theres' nothing there without evidence. I'm claiming that I don't know--I follow through faith, love, and hope. In case you're unaware of the concept of logic, the person making the assertion (you) bears the burden of truth. Prove that God is not real. I don't need to prove one way or the other--consider me an agnostic a-atheist. If you were an agnostic atheist, neither isde would have the burden of truth. But you're not. You outright claim that God exists without supporting your argument.

I'll illustrate this in a way that is on topic.

Here, one could take the position that the Holocaust never occurred and was an excuse for sympathy and entitlement for the Jews. As such, the burden of truth would be his--he needs to provide evidence that the Holocaust did occur, and then one could attempt to discredit his evidence (perhaps by finding evidence suggesting otherwise).

Do you understand now? I'm claiming that you have no proof, and you can't provide any. Not that it's a personal matter, as you are physically incapable of finding any evidence that the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God does not exist. So don't feel too bad in that respect. It's a natural flaw that comes with gnostic atheism.

Also, I would not care to continue this "argument" in the other thread, as your side of the argument is, as I have already claimed (and as we both already know), incapable of providing factual support. So no, I would not care to hear more unwarranted bickering on your behalf. It's obvious that you really don't care about the facts, you just don't want to feel that God exists, as you have no actual support. If you still think that you don't need support, then the arguemnt is over (although it was before it started). Good day.