PermaBan calinis?

damn kick his m*****s out of here

the more Calinis post he seems like his own self....I'm almost not supporting him anymore.

well give him till next saturday, see what happens

Quote :

Liche (who doesn't give a fuck anymore), Zach, Alek and I saw you doing that. The only way to prove it would have been by saving the chat. However, what you told me via PM is god enough evidence that you're actually capable of doing such things.

Hence unreliable witnesses.

Quote :

You're not supporting death penalty against people for causing troubles to society but simply for an activity which only has impact over their lives. It's like killing all those that don't drink coffee in the morning.

Nope they cause harm to other people as evidence would support. Anything that causes the brain to be screwed up and thus rational decisions hindered should certainly warrant severe punnishments, namely death. Anyone who takes drugs is obviously against society and thus we dont want this individual to continue living his pathetic life. Nobody should be allowed to harm innocent people. I equate drug-using scum to murderers in general. In fact that wouldn't be accurate because I can sometimes sympathize with murderers (like if they kill drug-using scum in only the way to help society), but never would I sympathize with drug-users. ever. I hate them sooooo much.

Quote :

The simple fact that the majority of these actions are perfomed by people who are not under the influence of drugs and that it's not a majority of the drug consuming population who performs this, your arguement is invalid.

Anyone who takes drugs could potentially cause harm to others, hence killing them before that happens would do everyone in society a favour. If you want to be a dumbass, then kill yourself instead of harming others.

Quote :

Since you approve of killing people just for consuming drugs, an activity that doesn't harm anyone but the consumer and that if in excess, you support killing innocent people.

I've already explained how it does harm other people, hence not innocent people. i would never sympathize with the drug-user who killed a mother and her four-year-old son while picking him up from daycare and if you would you're a sick person. By allowing people to have drugs, you're allowing that happen.

Quote :

As for the ban on calinis, Only well founded arguements should count. This guy is still trolling and is denying to have commited what he did commit.

What the hell...? Denying what I have commited?

Quote :

Hence unreliable witnesses.

Hence?... Now how are they unreliable?

Quote :

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to redsoviet obviously, in case you couldn't tell.

My fault. But my response still stands in defence of RedSoviet even (except maybe the thing about killing people, considering what his sig says). None the less, you're still far more offensive.

Quote :

Likewise I never told anyone that I wanted to kill them

Not directly. But you want to kill all drug users, and i use drugs... Ipso facto, you can figure out the rest.

Quote :

I've already explained how it does harm other people, hence not innocent people. i would never sympathize with the drug-user who killed a mother and her four-year-old son while picking him up from daycare and if you would you're a sick person. By allowing people to have drugs, you're allowing that happen.

Then we should take away cars too, no? By allowing people to have cars, we're obviously, by your logic, allowing for those people to murder each other in accidents. That's immoral, right calinis?

Tyrlop wrote:

I Know exactly everything about Anarchism, ive seen it grove, its like a evil mushroom!

There are societies that are principally anarchist, but there are not any anarchist societies, because this would mean getting rid of capitalism entirely.

Quote :

Anarchism is a mix between Imorality,

How? And what makes you so good that you can say what is moral?

Quote :

populism,

If you're referring to the working class versus the capitalist class, then yes, i suppose. But if you support the bourgeoisie, you're supporting slavery, so i'd end this immorality nonsense.

Quote :

revolution-Romantic

...okay

Quote :

psycotaism

Are you calling me schitz?

Quote :

and Uniquens onslaughter.

I don't understand what this means.

THIS IS TOO LONG
JUST GIVE HM ANOTHER CHANCE AND IF HE FAILS PERMA BAN HIS ASS

Quote :

Hence?... Now how are they unreliable?

Because they hate me. It would be desirable to manipulate my posts in order to convince others that I deserve to be banned.

Quote :

My fault. But my response still stands in defence of RedSoviet even (except maybe the thing about killing people, considering what his sig says). None the less, you're still far more offensive.

Redsoviet supports terrorism, thinks Stalin was a good person, and constantly says "fuck you" to anyone without holding any arguements. So yes, I think he is worse than me as he is truely offensive.

Quote :

Then we should take away cars too, no? By allowing people to have cars, we're obviously, by your logic, allowing for those people to murder each other in accidents. That's immoral, right calinis?

The benefit of having cars outweights the costs. There will always be precautions as eliminating cars wont make society any safer since accidents can happen on practically anything. However, in the terms of drugs, the social cost outweights the benefit. The benefit would be terms of the scum who take the drugs. I'm sure the rapist would have to deal with his lost freedom. (Oh how dreadful). Likewise you will too. People should not allowed to harm others. Simply because other things require precautions should not justify other unsafe things. Cars are a mean of transportation. Drugs do society no good (I dont care about the scum who take them as they care equatable with other scum like rapists and murderers), so your justification is invalid. People cannot think rationally while impaired and saying "well there are other unsafe things har har" should be encourage another one. So what if there are other unsafe practices? It's irralevent. You dont justify harming people simply because OTHER things harm people, as well.

calinis wrote:

Hence unreliable witnesses.

Of course, no one is less reliable than the victim and the people that were at the crime scene.

calinis wrote:

Nope they cause harm to other people as evidence would support. Anything that causes the brain to be screwed up and thus rational decisions hindered should certainly warrant severe punnishments, namely death.

Which means people should be monitored to always eat a well balanced diet since birth to death, otherwise they should be punished for not doing so, according to your logic.

Not eating well also hinders rational thought and in a much worse way.

So beware people on a diet, calinis is coming for you armed with an AR-15!

calinis wrote:

Anyone who takes drugs is obviously against society and thus we dont want this individual to continue living his pathetic life.

This arguement selfdestructs at the eyes of a person with some basic common sense.

calinis wrote:

Nobody should be allowed to harm innocent people. I equate drug-using scum to murderers in general. In fact that wouldn't be accurate because I can sometimes sympathize with murderers (like if they kill drug-using scum in only the way to help society), but never would I sympathize with drug-users. ever. I hate them sooooo much.

This actually proves you're far more limited to think rationally than any human could be after constantly consuming pot. According to your moral standards, you must be annihilated.

calinis wrote:

Anyone who takes drugs could potentially cause harm to others, hence killing them before that happens would do everyone in society a favour.

Anyone breathing, eating and capable of locomotion could potentially cause harm to others. So if killing those that could potentially cause harm to others is making society a favour, then killing anyone is making society a favour.

calinis wrote:

If you want to be a dumbass, then kill yourself instead of harming others.

If you're going to take seriously those words calinis, please do. Help society by being congruent!

calinis wrote:

I've already explained how it does harm other people, hence not innocent people.

You've failed to explain. There is no correlation between drug consumption and society-hindering actions... at least not a correlaton different to not eating properly. Else, you haveb't demonstrated that most crimes have been commited as direct product of drug consumption.

calinis wrote:

i would never sympathize with the drug-user who killed a mother and her four-year-old son while picking him up from daycare and if you would you're a sick person.

Let's speak calinese for a second:

I'll never hold sympathy for the puritan that coordinated nearly an entire people into ethnic cleansing and a war that costed dozens of millions of lives. If you would you're a sick person.

Now, as you've probably failed to notice, the problem is not drug consumption but murder. There is no proven correlation between drugs like marihuana or crack and said murder just as there is no correlation between Hitler's puritanism and WWII. It's like saying that just because Hitler was a vegan there is a higher probabilty of a vegan starting another eathnic cleansing campaing and a large scale war and so, in order to avoid a possible WWIII, all vegans should be executed. And just to make sure all people that are named Adolf. Another good preventive measure would be killing anyone with a mustache like Hitler's.

calinis wrote:

By allowing people to have drugs, you're allowing that happen.

[Calinese]Since male rapists have penises, by extension allowing men to have penises you're allowing rapes to happen.[/Calinese]

Once again, there's no proven correlation between drugs and murder, not only not in your example but also not in most of the cases in the real life.

calinis wrote:

What the hell...? Denying what I have commited?

You deny what you said to Zach and have called people that were present when you said so, and the person affected by your comment "unreliable sources of information".

Quote :

Of course, no one is less reliable than the victim and the people that were at the crime scene.

When they hate me, how can we trust their accuracy? I would have made up stuff about them, too, but zach got me first.

Quote :

Not eating well also hinders rational thought and in a much worse way.

Not really. Sometimes I just eat a few crackers in a day or two and I can function fine. I still have rationality in tact and would not be prone to violence or acting in an insane manner. If you're really sick, you're not going to eat a lot.

Quote :

Anyone breathing, eating and capable of locomotion could potentially cause harm to others. So if killing those that could potentially cause harm to others is making society a favour, then killing anyone is making society a favour.

When people put drugs into their system, the hsrm they cause society would certainly increase. I assume the average person is a rational individual and as such would not purposely cause harm to another person. Since people using drugs are not rational people, it is impossible to predict their behavior and doing something irrational is much more likely than doing something rational, even giving the cirumstances.

Quote :

You've failed to explain. There is no correlation between drug consumption and society-hindering actions... at least not a correlaton different to not eating properly. Else, you haveb't demonstrated that most crimes have been commited as direct product of drug consumption.

Drunk-driving is a huge one. The same result would be likewise reproduced with other drugs and does to a great deal. In addition, drug-users are more prone to violence. A women was beaten up and killed by this scum on crack about a year ago. Many cases like that are prevalent. Another case that happened locally was this dumbass drug user who urinated on this person while she was having a seizure. That's disgusting. In addition, people who use drugs are a hinderance to the decent people. They always beg for money so they can get high and shit and if you dont gibe them anything they'll probably attack you, they are a nuissance to the people nearby and nobody wants to deal with someone like that because you cant even talk to them like a noraml person.

Quote :

Now, as you've probably failed to notice, the problem is not drug consumption but murder. There is no proven correlation between drugs like marihuana or crack and said murder just as there is no correlation between Hitler's puritanism and WWII. It's like saying that just because Hitler was a vegan there is a higher probabilty of a vegan starting another eathnic cleansing campaing and a large scale war and so, in order to avoid a possible WWIII, all vegans should be executed. And just to make sure all people that are named Adolf. Another good preventive measure would be killing anyone with a mustache like Hitler's.

Irrelavent. Being a vegan doesnt hinder your ability to think rationally. What biochemical processes occur when you are vegan and is this significantly different than when you are a omnivore? I've already explained how drug users harm society. Your name doesn't dictate your behavior, so again, that is an inane parallel. Drugs do dictate your behavior in a way that you wouldn't think normally.

Quote :

[Calinese]Since male rapists have penises, by extension allowing men to have penises you're allowing rapes to happen.[/Calinese]

Having a penis is for reproductive purposes. Taking drugs serves no purpose.

Quote :

Once again, there's no proven correlation between drugs and murder, not only not in your example but also not in most of the cases in the real life.

Just read the newspaper and you will see.

Quote :

You deny what you said to Zach and have called people that were present when you said so, and the person affected by your comment "unreliable sources of information".

because they are unreliable. if they weren't biased, it would have been different.

calinis wrote:

When they hate me, how can we trust their accuracy? I would have made up stuff about them, too, but zach got me first.

If I saw someone murder a person that I know was innocent I would hate the murderer.

In other words, if we hate you is because of the kind of things you do. These things ultimately lead to our accusations.

calinis wrote:

Not really. Sometimes I just eat a few crackers in a day or two and I can function fine. I still have rationality in tact and would not be prone to violence or acting in an insane manner. If you're really sick, you're not going to eat a lot.

Most of your posts will refute that you are able of rational thinking. You've just provided one of the many possible explanations of why your posts are so lacking in coherence and rationality.

calinis wrote:

When people put drugs into their system, the hsrm they cause society would certainly increase.

Like social damage to drug consumption ratio is of 1.7 or something like that? Absurd again.

calinis wrote:

I assume the average person is a rational individual and as such would not purposely cause harm to another person.

Disregarding all possible circumstances that may lead to a human harming another of course. You cannot concede that it might just take a moment of anger, accumulated frustration, a persistant situation, a shock a reflex etc. that can lead to a human harming another. Drug consumption incites people to kill others as much as being furious.

calinis wrote:

Since people using drugs are not rational people,

Not really.

calinis wrote:

it is impossible to predict their behavior and doing something irrational is much more likely than doing something rational, even giving the cirumstances.

So according to your logic the rationality of a persons action is proportional to said action's predictability... interesting, also stupid.

calinis wrote:

Drunk-driving is a huge one.

Drunk driving. I hope you're aware that this is a very different case than the one you're trying to exemplify earlier in the post. While driving drunk you're not irrational, you simply lack the required mental and bodily agility required to drive properly. The only irrational thing there is actually trying to drive while being very drunk, but that's not necesarily product of drunkness itself.

It's not like people get drunk and say "Man, time to crash some cars and ride over people!"

calinis wrote:

The same result would be likewise reproduced with other drugs and does to a great deal. In addition, drug-users are more prone to violence.

Violent people are prone to violence. Men with high levels of testosterone production are more prone to violence. People under great levels of frustration and anger are more prone to violence. People under conditions that force them to struggle against their peers for survival are more prone to violence. Some people may even have a genetic predisposition that can make them more violent.

There are so many factors... but you have to choose drugs as the predominant or even the only one.

calinis wrote:

A women was beaten up and killed by this scum on crack about a year ago.

Which doesn't mean he killed her because he was on crack.

calinis wrote:

Many cases like that are prevalent. Another case that happened locally was this dumbass drug user who urinated on this person while she was having a seizure. That's disgusting.

Once again, that doesn't mean the drugs are what caused that condition. My brother peed over a car just for fun, and he doesn't take drugs. Wait a minute, now I know what the problem was: he ingested something with water. Water consumption should be prohibited then and water consumers killed.

calinis wrote:

In addition, people who use drugs are a hinderance to the decent people.

Not really. Some supposedly "decent people" are a real hindrance to society.

calinis wrote:

They always beg for money so they can get high and shit and if you dont gibe them anything they'll probably attack you, they are a nuissance to the people nearby and nobody wants to deal with someone like that because you cant even talk to them like a noraml person.

This is obvious trolling. Lots of drug consumers can afford their drugs. You seem to be rageting hobos, which are actually just another of the inmense ammount of capitalism's victims.

calinis wrote:

Irrelavent. Being a vegan doesnt hinder your ability to think rationally. What biochemical processes occur when you are vegan and is this significantly different than when you are a omnivore?

Actually, it can. But that was not the focal point of the example. The thing is that you are blaming upon a single factor a phenomena that has roots in other more important circumstances.

calinis wrote:

I've already explained how drug users harm society. Your name doesn't dictate your behavior, so again, that is an inane parallel. Drugs do dictate your behavior in a way that you wouldn't think normally.

And I've laready explained you why you're wrong. You're saying that drug consumption inherently makes people harm others being this a false statement. Most of the crimes that have happened and most of the accidents have not even involved a single party under the effects of drugs.

calinis wrote:

Having a penis is for reproductive purposes. Taking drugs serves no purpose.

Sarcastic parallelism.

calinis wrote:

Just read the newspaper and you will see.

I do. There are several other factors involved aside drug consumption, and many crimes don't even involve it.

calinis wrote:

because they are unreliable. if they weren't biased, it would have been different.

Point adressed at the start of the post. We're the only witnesses, we're against you because we saw what you did and do not agree with it, and of course it's convenient to just tag us as "unreliable" for being biased.

Once again, if someone doesn't agree with murder and sees a murder, do you expect the witness to assume a neutral stance towards the murderer?

Quote :

Disregarding all possible circumstances that may lead to a human harming another of course. You cannot concede that it might just take a moment of anger, accumulated frustration, a persistant situation, a shock a reflex etc. that can lead to a human harming another. Drug consumption incites people to kill others as much as being furious.

Yeah, people would take drugs want to take them and the consequence is misguided actions. It's their choice. Sometimes anger causes a person to act in an irrational way, but if this person considers the consequences (because he is not impaired), then that would be a rational decision. Aside, if he kills someone, he will be killed also, just like the drug user. The thing is we cant have people being killed for a normal human emotion. However taking drugs does not create a normal human emotion and a sane human being would not take drugs. If we can eliminate murders by even a fraction (which it would be WAY more significant than that), then we will enforce this. Yes other things cause people to die, too, but most things have a purpose. Taking recreational drugs does not.

Quote :

So according to your logic the rationality of a persons action is proportional to said action's predictability... interesting, also stupid.

No, but it's just impossible to think about drug users will do. This uncertainly will make people feel less secure.

Quote :

The only irrational thing there is actually trying to drive while being very drunk, but that's not necesarily product of drunkness itself.

When you're drunk, you will think you're fine and capable of driving because you are not thinking clearly.

Quote :

There are so many factors... but you have to choose drugs as the predominant or even the only one.

I guess the justification is "let's let drug users harm people because OTHER people are prone to violence as well"

Quote :

Once again, that doesn't mean the drugs are what caused that condition. My brother peed over a car just for fun, and he doesn't take drugs

HA HA HA
God teenagers are so pathetic. If anyone urinates or does anything like that to my property, I'd shoot them.

I know that was irrelavent but I just wanted to say how fucking stupid that was.

If drug using doesn't cause that condition, then the people are just stupid anyways. But yes, the guy was on drugs. Any rational and decent person would not do that.

Quote :

Actually, it can. But that was not the focal point of the example. The thing is that you are blaming upon a single factor a phenomena that has roots in other more important circumstances.

Nah. Drug use is the most significant factor in many cases.

Quote :

And I've laready explained you why you're wrong. You're saying that drug consumption inherently makes people harm others being this a false statement. Most of the crimes that have happened and most of the accidents have not even involved a single party under the effects of drugs.

Actually they do. The majority of crimes around here relate some degree to drug use.

Quote :

Once again, if someone doesn't agree with murder and sees a murder, do you expect the witness to assume a neutral stance towards the murderer?

I would consider the person's relationship with the murderer first. It's not convinient to lie in court especially if you dont know the person because they'll slap a perjury charge on you. Here it's convinient to lie because you want me banned so you make up shit.

ive changed my mind, calinis insulted me. and i also read abowe that he would shot people if they urinate on their property...... OMG

calinis wrote:

Yeah, people would take drugs want to take them and the consequence is misguided actions. It's their choice.

People want to live and living implies getting in circumstances that may put them undre enough pressure to hinder their rationality thus leading them to commit irrational acts of different natures, in many cases implying harm to others. It's their choice to live, what is not their choice is the hostility of the system within which they are born.

calinis wrote:

Sometimes anger causes a person to act in an irrational way, but if this person considers the consequences (because he is not impaired), then that would be a rational decision.

When being quite angry people are unable to think of the consequences of their actions. Often people that harm others due to anger feel quite repented for their action precisely because they were unable to balance the consequences. Some even comit suicide if the harm they've comited is too great in their views. This is a much more important factor than drug consumption.

calinis wrote:

Aside, if he kills someone, he will be killed also, just like the drug user. The thing is we cant have people being killed for a normal human emotion.

The problem is that if that person smokes weed once or twice a week you'll blame it on the weed instead of the natural human emotion.

calinis wrote:

However taking drugs does not create a normal human emotion and a sane human being would not take drugs.

Drug creates desire to have sex. Desire to have sex is a normal human emotion. Argument invalidated. A sane person would take drugs out of mere experimentation. Arguement invalidated.

calinis wrote:

If we can eliminate murders by even a fraction (which it would be WAY more significant than that), then we will enforce this.

Once again you're targeting the wrong origin. People don't kill others because they're under the influence of drugs but because they have other motives. Most murders are out of frustration, as part of a mental illness, for money or other material interests. Drug induced murders are a much lesser number than murders commited by other factors wich could be prevented given a more sane society.

calinis wrote:

Yes other things cause people to die, too, but most things have a purpose. Taking recreational drugs does not.

The most human-destructive anthropogenic activities have no purpose at all. They're just a derivate of sheer ignorance and immaturity.

calinis wrote:

No, but it's just impossible to think about drug users will do. This uncertainly will make people feel less secure.

Not really, specially if you know drug consumers yourself. Something you obviously don't.

calinis wrote:

When you're drunk, you will think you're fine and capable of driving because you are not thinking clearly.

That's excess self-confidence. Many people think they can do a lot of things regardless of their state and attempt them. drunk people are often conscious of their state yet some are too proud to admit they're unable to perform tasks like driving and do not let themselves not to drive.

calinis wrote:

I guess the justification is "let's let drug users harm people because OTHER people are prone to violence as well"

No, it's a simple as this: Let's let people consume drugs because it doesn't affect anyone but themselves. Just because a person consumes weed and kills a person doesn't mean he killed that person while on weed. He killed that person for a series of factors behind that. Could be anger, could be revenge, would be a means of coercion, could be mental illness.

calinis wrote:

HA HA HA
God teenagers are so pathetic. If anyone urinates or does anything like that to my property, I'd shoot them.

Look who is talking about others being pathetic, specially teenagers, and being himself a teen.

But well, 1) don't dodge the focal point, which is that people can commit irrational actions without any influence from drugs meaning that drugs do not originate these actions but the person's individual conditions 2) although your case doesn't help, don't generalize, most teenagers are not pathetic.

calinis wrote:

I know that was irrelavent but I just wanted to say how fucking stupid that was.

Yeah, but don't dodge te point.

calinis wrote:

If drug using doesn't cause that condition, then the people are just stupid anyways.

Stupid, angry, frustrated or careless. The most important factor is the environment in which persons develop. The kind of society people has to face.

calinis wrote:

But yes, the guy was on drugs. Any rational and decent person would not do that.

Define "decent".

calinis wrote:

Nah. Drug use is the most significant factor in many cases.

Not at all. It's just an additional factor and in most cases not even a factor just a side note.

calinis wrote:

Actually they do. The majority of crimes around here relate some degree to drug use.

Wrong. What is probable is that most criminals consume drugs, yet, it doesn't mean they commit crimes because of drugs. Theere are other reasons behind that. Also it's not suprise since your country is world's number 1 drug consumer.

calinis wrote:

I would consider the person's relationship with the murderer first.

So it is actually relevant to note that Zach doesn't like you. That would probably justify the fact that you made fun of his brother's death, right?

calinis wrote:

It's not convinient to lie in court especially if you dont know the person because they'll slap a perjury charge on you.

Then I don't recommend you to go into court ever.

calinis wrote:

Here it's convinient to lie because you want me banned so you make up shit.

Actually not. Your reputation precedes you: you're a troll, a hypocrite, and a slanderer. If I wanted to ban you I could do it right now. Just check the poll, it's more people against you than in favour of you, it would be democratic. But I want all the naive people that want to grant you a second chance to see the kind of crap you are. Unfortunately, they don't take their time to lurk the site enough nor read others' arguements.

Lots of people fight each other. People on marijuana? They won't fight, because it's impossible.
Also, Bill Hicks was perfectly sane, and awesome, and took drugs. Almost everybody drinks alcohol (because the alcohol industry doesn't want anybody to have marijuana, since it can be grown anywhere rather than having to be bought at high prices. Crud, they managed to get snus banned in the EU, last I remember), which is a drug, and a silly one. It doesn't really do anything significant for you, and drunk people can often be assholes and violent.

It's been ten days; is he banned or what?

Black_Cross wrote:

It's been ten days; is he banned or what?

Maybe it isn't democratic until most disagree....[/endsarcasm]

I changed my vote to disagree.

Just because the more I think about it, the more I feel he should be perma-banned.

Ok, there should be a time-limit for all ban polls, evryone 10-day time i say!
Like when the other Cali bann poll(https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/trials-f52/to-ban-calinis-t1656.htm) that poll went to 15 votes or 2 weeks, however RS ban poll got only...?
Nope, do not know.
So we should make a offcial time limit for how long a ban poll sticks.

I say we give this poll 1 more day.

I agree with 1 day!

im moving away from the calanis supporters 2

This is the last day for this votation.

Why the last day?
Why should it be now, when it switched from a favorable situation of calinis to a negative one.

Kenzu wrote:

Why the last day?
Why should it be now, when it switched from a favorable situation of calinis to a negative one.

Good point. Every time i return here something new is happening about calinis.