Topic: so...why shouldnt we kill all muslims?

+Anonymous A — 11.5 years ago #40,595

n/t

+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 7 minutes later[T] [B] #444,851

@OP

Why shouldn't we kill all USAmericans?

+Fake Syntax — 11.5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,852

@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Fuckalms is American, Doc. If you kill "all" USAmericans, it will mean that you kill Fuckalms. Do you want Fuckalms to die, Doc?

+Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,853

@previous (Fake Syntax )
FuckAlms is an alien

·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 10 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,854

@444,852 (Fake Syntax )

> Stop taking this seriously you bell-end

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 50 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,855

Screen shot 2015-02-09 at 7.50.58 PM.png

i saw the doctor posted in this thread

good news is that i dont have to see it

nobody does

+ducky — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,857

@previous (A)
Lololololololol

+Anonymous F — 11.5 years ago, 28 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,858

because i like ducky

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 55 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,860

@previous (F)

> because i like ducky

she isnt a muslim, nice try ISIS

+On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,861

because it takes effort?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,862

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> because it takes effort?

it takes 0 effort, muslims are being killed as im typing this right now!

i dont have to move a single muscle and yet they are killing each other, its great

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,864

@previous (A)
that's just because someone took your effort, you lazy fuck

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 31 seconds later, 49 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,865

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> that's just because someone took your effort, you lazy fuck

of course, the muslims did, they want to kill each other so badly why should i waste any effort? they've been doing it for -THOUSANDS- of years

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,866

@previous (A)
topic: so...why shouldnt WE kill all muslims?

unless you are also muslim, your previous statement is invalid

·ducky — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,867

Kill one muslim, a woman gives birth to ten muslims

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,868

@444,866 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> topic: so...why shouldnt WE kill all muslims?
>
> unless you are also muslim, your previous statement is invalid

you're looking for a technicality and its really pathetic that you have no concept of reading comprehension, nice strawman

the statement is correct, we are killing muslims already and some people say that we shouldn't be, so why not? if we are not already killing them they will just go back to killing each other

upgrade to domestos

(Edited 1 minute later.)

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 0 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #444,869

@444,867 (ducky )
muslim get impregnated by dead muslim?

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,870

@444,868 (A)
nice to see you covering your fallacy

if they're bound to killing themselves, then my reason stay correct, "that takes effort"
why bother dealing with shit when they're bounded to dealt themselves

·ducky — 11.5 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,871

@444,869 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
I guess so

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,872

@444,870 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> nice to see you covering your fallacy
>
> if they're bound to killing themselves, then my reason stay correct, "that takes effort"
> why bother dealing with shit when they're bounded to dealt themselves

covering my fallacy is calling you out for a strawman?

nice autism

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,873

@previous (A)
calling me a strawman is your cover of fallacy

back to topic, why bother dealing with shit when they're bounded to dealt themselves

+Anonymous H — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,876

@444,853 (D)
FuckAlms is a cat*

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,878

@444,873 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> calling me a strawman is your cover of fallacy
>

no, it isnt, sorry.

i know that it must be difficult to come to terms with your autism but throwing out words that you utterly do not seem to understand isn't going to work.

you definitely should look up the meaning of words though before using them, you're only going to discredit yourself (and make yourself seem more pathetic)

·The Dotcor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,879

@previous (A)

> mad

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,881

@444,878 (A)
all the words and you're still not responding to my question

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,882

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> all the words and you're still not responding to my question

you didn't post a question, you said "back to the topic at hand"

you're insanely stupid

·The Dcotor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,883

@previous (A)

> mad

See @444,879 (The Dotcor !7MHPahvoGY)

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,884

@444,882 (A)
i'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding a proper english statement

allow me to reword my statements for your ease to read

YOU: Y NO KILL MUSLIM
ALSO YOU: THEY KILL THEMSELVES
ME: THEY KILL THEMSELVES, WHY WE KILL THEM

·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,885

Screen shot 2015-02-09 at 8.41.35 PM.png

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

> i'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding a proper english statement
>
> allow me to reword my statements for your ease to read
>
> YOU: Y NO KILL MUSLIM
> ALSO YOU: THEY KILL THEMSELVES
> ME: THEY KILL THEMSELVES, WHY WE KILL THEM

you didn't ask that anywhere, the only question you are referring to is the one that I asked, which was in the original post

ive skimmed this thread multiple times and the only thing you've been doing is trying to point out fallacies (and failing) and then reverting back to -my- original post

i didn't realize that YOU originally posted this thread, because you didn't.

i even took a screenshot

schizophrenia? autism? just being mentally challenged in general? dont bother answering, i've already posted the answer multiple times

·ducky — 11.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,886

Wow op why so rude

+Anonymous I — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,887

lol op is mad as hell

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,888

@444,885 (A)
hmm looks like my abilities of communicating with mental disabilities is failing
or your situation is worse than i estimated ionno

try to widen your mind, I know it might be difficult for a typical autism sufferer
but just widen it a little bit, not focusing on a single reply, but to this whole thread
then you will see what I was referring all along

that's ok, take all the time you need, babysteps

·The Dtocor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,891

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

I think he might be getting a bit cross.

(Edited 12 seconds later.)

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #444,892

@previous (The Dtocor !7MHPahvoGY)
That's the inevitable stage in overcoming autism

+Anonymous J — 11.5 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,908

@OP

> n/t

because it would be wrong

+Syntax — 11.5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,912

@444,867 (ducky )

> Kill one muslim, a woman gives birth to ten muslims
LOL

This whole tread is just terrific

On how it b you have most purrrrrfect English then get more worse English then Me?

But is sure is funny.

OP If New York City cannot kill all rats - If WE cannot kill all cancer cells - Fact is there are now more Rats n Cockroaches then in past

More Muslims as well

Also getting rid of all Muslims wood not solve the problem of China and damn just wait till On reads the new Chinese Internet laws to take effect Mar 1

·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,914

@previous (Syntax )
You mistaken my Chinglish as English
The Chinese Internet laws never affect HK so Sprite, but I do hope it will block off fatfuck from spreading shit on TC for once and for all

·Syntax — 11.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,916

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
Oh Yea I see several of the new provisions that can apply and make a mess of his current net life

Summary:From March 1, the Chinese government will outlaw the use of fake registration names for internet services such as blogs, social media, and chat platforms within its borders.
The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) is introducing new regulations forcing people within the country's borders to use their real names when registering accounts for internet-based services such blogs, chat services, and social networks.
Under the new rules, internet service users can continue to employ personalised account names as long as they register accounts with their real names.
Latest news on Asia
It will also be illegal to impersonate other people, organisations, and government bodies.
According to a report by the country's official state press agency Xinhua, the CAC's mobile internet bureau head Xu Feng said that some accounts use names similar to government departments of official media to "spread rumours".
The 10-clause regulation, which was published on February 4, also ruled that avatars and account handles should "not include information that violated the Constitution or the country's laws; subverts state power; undermines national security and sovereignty; or is deemed rumor mongering", said Xinhua.
"Malicious content includes the promotion of cults and the dissemination of pornography or extremism; and insulting or defamation of others, among others, according to the regulation," the report said.
The new regulations will take effect from March 1, with the CAC set to monitor all avatars and account handles registered on blogs, microblogs, instant messaging services, online forums, comment sections, and other services.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are likely to be held accountable for content that is deemed to be illegal by the new regulations, with the CAC calling for ISPs to improve their services and supervision.
The Chinese government, which was long been highly protective of the internet within its national borders, has been ramping up its national internet security, particularly since the extent of the United States' National Security Agency's internet spying activities were revealed by classified documents leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden.
In late January, the country upgraded its national internet filtering system, known as the Great Firewall, making internet filtering much stricter and more difficult to circumvent.
On Wednesday, it emerged that the country's military will instigate tougher political and ideological background checks on officers and soldiers, as well as strictly control their internet access as censorship reaches new levels.
The move to weed out anonymous internet service accounts from its national ranks is feared to have the effect of further stifling free speech in the country, with The New York Times last month highlighting the long-standing tradition of dissident bloggers and authors in the country using pen names to escape detection and government persecution.

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

·Syntax — 11.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,918

> It will also be illegal to impersonate other people,

> or is deemed rumor mongering"

> dissemination of pornography or extremism; and insulting or defamation of others, among others, according to the regulation," the report said.

Given the amount of time he spends on scatchan and grief mods have with his content - I think I will pass along a few lines of the rules to Mods via PM just for the lulz
Been getting PM's from Sysops so this should be most fun

> set to monitor all avatars and account handles registered on blogs, microblogs, instant messaging services, online forums, comment sections, and other services.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are likely to be held accountable for content that is deemed to be illegal by the new regulations, with the CAC calling for ISPs to improve their services and supervision.

·President of Foreign Country — 11.5 years ago, 13 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,951

This Chinese dictatorship is a menace.

·Billy — 11.5 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,957

ITT: Doc blows 2 mods at the same time. Playing the odds.

·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #444,970

@previous (Billy )

Nam nam nam! Feed me more delicious madposts!

·Anonymous J — 11.5 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #445,231

@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
I thought you were going to say cock

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

+Anonymous L — 11.5 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #445,252

@444,918 (Syntax )
Is scatchan a 15 minute drive from you?

Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.

TinyChan