SeanB's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of SeanB's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

I'm Irish, so I can't say that I have ever belonged to the "we" that you ascribe yourself to. I saw the same policy by the British in Ireland, as I see in the Middle East by the Yanks now. And now, as then, people are fighting against tyranny and oppression. But, all that aside, you are right. The British are just as culpable as the Americans. It was, after all, the British who initiated this whole debacle with British Petroleum, Reza Shah, SAVAK and the coup against Mossadegh.

1 point

Inexactly! INCORRECT! HOGWASH! ...........................................................................

2 points

Yep, I saw it. The Empirical curse. And I think it's right. The Americans have played fast and loose too long. People are continually wanting nations to abide by law. If we are to be a protector of our own planet, and to benefit as its protectorates, it is what we need.

2 points

Literally they have never instigated an act of war in their entire history since before the British Empire. Persians are not Arabs, but Muricans are often too dull to make distinctions like that. It seems like America has lost to ability to recognize nuance in ANYTHING.

2 points

Yep. The USA haven't had a defensive war in their entire history. even WW2, all they did was send a token of troops and a lot of supplies. There are bars in my country older than their country.

2 points

And the most suprising thing, the same Iranian citizens who shouted "death to America" also shouted "death to the Dictator" (referring to Khomeini).

The Iranian pyublic are not stupid nor shy. They despise dictatorship just as much as they despise imperialism and the desire to start a needless war. They are a people who want a number of things:

1. American withdrawal and no more interference in their lives by Western powers;

2. Peace

3. A self-determined country with a political system of their own choosing.

What they don't want is war; death; destruction; despotism; conflict; isolation; oppression. They are famously generous people and make the best hosts I have ever come across. And they are strong; resilient; educated; intelligent.

Far more than I can say for many Americans, frankly.

2 points

Agreed. It's unacceptable. The Yanks are trying desperately to make Iran scapegoat for problems the Yanks are creating themselves. Not gonna work this time. They can go and fuck.

To all invaders, anywhere: get the fuck back to your own country.

2 points

The region's most dangerous terrorist is clearly the United States military. It wasn't Iran who tried to start a war.

Trump backing down is the last whimpering hurrah of a dying empire. The truth is, the US wouldn't be able to defeat Iran in an invasion considering its clout in the region and its asymmetrical style of warfare, and the DoD know it full well. They ran simulations that proved it.

Iran, for all its faults, does not invade foreign sovereign territories or oppress other nation states. In fact, it continually has the distinguished record of being the first country to recognize the independence of self declared states, and has continually abided by international law regarding its own defence. Nothing that Iran has done in any of this farce has actually been illegal, unlike the USA.

America and the allies in general like to cry "freedom", "democracy", but only when it suits their own foreign interests. The Yanks had no interest in democracy when middle Eastern and African states were nationalizing their industries and breaking up American monopolies on their soil.

In fact, the Muricans generally, worldwide, have a problem with the self determination of nation states (besides Israel, of course).

The truth is, the world is waking up. Imperialism is a dying policy. There's no patience for it anymore. Best get used to it.

2 points

There is no necessary correlation. Legal can be to many people morally wrong, and illegal can be to many people morally justifiable. It is subjective, like all morality and law. This is why we should teach kids to discern moral ideologies and make their own minds up, rather than "it's wrong because it's wrong".

1 point

There is no necessary correlation. Legal can be to many people morally wrong, and illegal can be to many people morally justifiable. It is subjective, like all morality and law. This is why we should teach kids to discern moral ideologies and make their own minds up, rather than "it's wrong because it's wrong".

1 point

You should know better, on this website. Nothing is bound to logical inference.

1 point

Tell me what movement is there advocating for incest? How is LGBT marriage a slippery slope to incest?

It's bullshit.

Humans naturally don't want to fuck their brothers and sisters. It's an instinctual ability to discern between people who would harm or help the gene pool.

1 point

An atheist here: no reigious undercurrents.

But even when it's legal, people get exploited.

I don't think legality is the issue (it should be legal). I think our unwillingness to recognize it and legitimize it is the issue. If we don't legitimize it, and have proper safeguards in place, it can be abused.

If it is made legal, it ought to have all the protections of a mainstream profession, and more: employment rights, mental health care, free contraceptives, free STI screening, counselling, paternity protection (for both sexes -- ie. a man can't be held accountable for a child, but a woman should have access to abortion) etc etc.

1 point


Marriage is the coming together of a consensual couple, and gay marriage activists in no way advocate for incest. Conflating the two is a moronic endeavour. It shows a profound lack of ability to discern the boundaries of this social movement.

1 point

You have an anti scientific stance on everything. Why should anyone trust a syllable you utter about science?

1. Substantiate the things you say scientists claim.

2. Refute those claims with scientific evidence.

That would mean your arguments are valid. But you never do either of those things. You scream "scientists say this!!" without ever showing evidence. And then you say "scientists have shown this false!!"" without ever showing evidence.

Meanwhile you believe in a book that says Earth was formed in 6 days, and people can be brought back to life.


2 points

Paedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different attractions. Is a banana a computer?

1 point

Use your own logic. Supply and demand. People are forced to use cars busses and trains for lack of an accessible alternative, which is a result of a political choice to continue to back fossil fuel.

1 point

If you seriously believe this and aren't just playing melodramatic troll, as usual, then perhaps being you, should be a crime, and carrying you to term, should be punishable by abortion.

1 point

People lie. What is your point, if you actually have one?

1 point

His point wasn't about abortion. It was about at which point a human entity begins to be culpable for sin. If we take your view, it is at conception.

1 point

It's a very poor argument to say: Obama bought a beach front house, therefore global warming is a myth.

Very poor, indeed.

1 point

Rhyme repels,

By sitting here on the precipice,

of a dumping ground for expelling a stinky sphincter's detritus.

He relieves his urge by leaving a scourge of lyric excrements,

And straight up pulls up without wiping off the left-on shit ...

1 point

What was snobby about it? This is a debate site, where we weigh arguments on the accuracy of their content. I'm not quite sure how stating that it would be difficult to debate with you because you are reducing things to an unsuitable level is snobbish.

But, I certainly don't mean to come across snobbish.

Perhaps you'd like to respond to the content of what I said though? Particularly the portion I framed as a question, regarding the nature of "God", should we assume he has unlimited foresight, knowledge and power.

2 points

So you are saying the grand "ol Secular USA you support and love so much, is less civilized and economically and socially successful than say ancient Israel?


Ancient Israel killed Jeebus, sure ...

If Jeebus has been born in modern Netherlands, he wouldn't even have gotten arrested for preaching "feed the homeless" and "love the needy". In fact he probably would have become their Prime Minister. Maybe won a few elections. Socialized a few people.

Maybe Jeebus wouldn't even have been persecuted if he lived in the modern good 'ol USA .. unless he was Middle Eastern of course (which he was) .. and Brown (which we was) .. and spoke some foreign Aramaic language (which he did) ... and believed in some radical form of collective charity (which he did) ... and preached resistance toward the status quo for the benefit of the poor (which he did) ... and was an emigre from his own country (which he was)

Ooopsies ...

Jesus, if we take him by your assessments of the planet and its people nowadays, is a modern day commie brown-skinned middle-eastern revolutionary immigrant heretic :/


1 of 47 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]