So, on Game of War, I have gotten to the point where all of my research and buildings take 100+ days minimum to do.
Here's a list of what I have and their levels:

Villa x7 - Level 21
Gymnos - Level 21
Barracks x4 - Level 21
Hospital x4 - Level 21
Treasury - Level 7 (Max level)
Explorer dungeon - Level 14
Embassy - Level 21
Hall of War - Level 21
Prison - Level 21
Altar - Level 21
Storehouse - Level 21
Forge - Level 21
Academy - Level 21
Market Place - Level 21
Watchtower - Level 21
Walls - Level 21
Stronghold - Level 22
Farms x4 - Level 22
Farm x1 - Level 12
Quarry x4 - Level 22
Mine x4 - Level 22
Logging Camp x4 - Level 22
Troops - 1,350,275

Alliance: (BT69)
Power: 77,937,751

Because of the long time it takes for me to research and build anything, I may stat taking my troops out to find resources and those world map icons. I may also start hunting down other people's heroes and executing them, just because I can.

I want to know what you all have in your cities/villages, your icon, your power. I just want to know what your Game of War experience is like. 

How to play: I'll comment a Pokémon and a move. You then comment a Pokémon my move would be ineffective against.
After you have blocked my move, you then "send out" a Pokémon and use a move. 
It continues like that.

Obviously, I have to start with my all time favourite.

I choose you, Pikachu! Pikachu, use thunderbolt!

Image upload: 220x221 totaling 4 KB's.

janus : I am happy with what he is doing for the country. Not everything, but he is very efficient in doing what he wants.

I am mad that he has retracted getting a special lawyer to look into the Clinton case. 

RDay13: The reason I used a character attack is because it was the same thing he was doing. A baseless assumption. No evidence, just a generalised assumption. The hypocrisy was intended.

I did say "They saw at least part of the war" An act of terror leading to a war. Does that not make it part of the war? The beginning, to be exact. However, as said, the US didn't declare war after 9/11. Congress did not write a declaration of war, so there was no war post- 9/11, it was a conflict.

He didn't decrease unemployment rates that is a myth which has been debunked. Obama bringing the US out of recession, Harvard debunked. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/harvard-debunks-obama-recovery-farce
Obama's presidency increased race tensions and made other superpowers look at America and literally say Obama is a coward. *Putin Intensifies*

I did support Trump, because he was the best candidate running that would win.
I quote Shapiro, because everything he has said has not been proven to be wrong as of yet. The person and their position does not matter, if their statements can't be disproven. 


I agree, there is no perfect form of economy. But Capitalism is by far the best we've seen to date. Not believing in Fascism means nothing. Fascism is a thing that does and has existed, the belief in it is unnecessary. Bill Gates is the richest man alive and also the biggest philanthropist. He is also a capitalist. Is he greedy, or is he just smart? What is corruption coming from private businesses? Someone making money? What, exactly, is the corruption you're talking about? Corruption like Hillary Clinton that was exposed? But her's wasn't private, it was a charity, and public. False, capitalist societies, especially America, has the greatest fluctuation of classes. If you go to college, don't get a useless degree, and get a job related to a useful degree, you will have no outstanding debt in the US. But, students have higher debts, because people get worse degrees. No one is going to give a 6 figure salary to people who majored gender studies. 
Luck doesn't exist, it has not been a proven phenomenon and saying you need it to succeed is why people don't succeed.

Education is paid for up to a high school education. They just have to do well in those subjects. But, the poorer parts of the country, like Baltimore is also where the most crime is. No one wants to open businesses when the most property damage happens. It is also is usually where the most black people are, where the heightened rate of single parenthood is. Studies have found single parenthoods are worse than 2 parents, so there's going to be more crime, more gangs, generally worse people, due to bad upbringings. It generally is black people that have these things. Obama claimed he'd sort race inequalities, yet it has actually become worse in the past 8 years. Yes, it is harder for a lower class to get out of the lower class, but it's entirely possible and 100% easier than almost all other countries.

I actually loved Obama when he first came. But then I started realising how bad he actually was. Why do I hate Obama? Because he betrayed the people's trust in him. Everyone who says he was "the greatest president ever" are usually the people that care he's the first black president over being a good president.

Mold and Crumbs: Nazi German was run by the National Socialist party. It was socialist. But, as all forms of socialism do, it failed and became "Not real socialism."

America is easily the most privileged country in the world. There's no oppression as seen in Asian and middle eastern countries, it's extremely diverse, it has freedoms guaranteed to them, unlike almost every other country. In America, the lower class is better off than the middle class in many other countries. Almost every person in America has some form of technology on them. 315 million people the country and it was great up until a socialist came into power - yes, Obama was a socialist, arguing against that is just blatantly ignoring facts. He hasn't come out and said it, but his actions have shown him to be one.

I never claimed North Korea was democratic, you've just made a baseless assumption. I'll make one about you: You have no clue as to what you're talking about and resort to character attacks based on no evidence, because you're a leftist.

"The US is first in GDP" so there you go, GDP is what matters in the economy. Economic growth just means the economy is growing.
You are also using something called "forecast" meaning speculation. That's called a presumption and holds very little standing in a debate, you realise that right? You have just said "well, look here, it looks like it could happen, guess that's my argument" 

Congratulations, he stopped people needing wheelbarrows, if that's your argument for "He made the economy perfect" you have no argument. The economy is more than "how many notes do I need to take" There's trillion note currencies in the world today, so people don't need wheelbarrows. There economy isn't exactly the best is it (They're also socialist countries)

Once again, improving the economy doesn't mean the economy was great. The economy was still terrible, thanks to the National Socialist party. He did many things that hindered long-term growth, which made the economy even worse, because short term solutions always lead to long term problems. Something the socialist part of the world has not realised after 100 years.

Actually, the Russians joining the war is more why the Nazis lost. Having to divide your army to fight "two fronts" is never a good idea. With Italy needing help in the deserts and Japan being virtually useless anyway, Nazi Germany was destined to lose the war. The UK was and had been for the longest time an economic and militaristic powerhouse. Obviously, now, the military side of that is false, but we're still a massive economic powerhouse and international superpower.

The US's production rates went up around 200% after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The exports to Japan, Germany, Italy, the Axis powers ceased almost entirely - some America companies still did business, because that's what the free market in capitalism allows. Trade with England, France, China, the allies went up exponentially. The local affect on the economy came from free-market capitalism, some companies converted to war effort. But, as said, some companies didn't, because they didn't want to lose "consumer market shares" to competitors.

Yes, bombs dropped means you lose life. But the amount of unemployed due to the great depression means there was enough work force unemployed for that to have very little affect. 20% of the entire population was unemployed. 1940's population was, according to the United States consensus: 132,164,569 people. Since the depression ended around '39, the population of unemployed was: 20% of the '30s population being: 123,202,624. 24,640,525 people unemployed. 200% increased production, 25m unemployed.

If the efficiency was a problem, why would production have increased?

There's 916, veterans of WW2 still alive, as of 2016. People have seen war on US soil, or, at least, parts of the war. If you mean any war, Congress has only declared war 11 times. the last in 1942 with Romania. 

You know how to get rid of government control? Privatise more things. Obamacare stopped privatisation of healthcare, which, ironically, increased the number of doctors going into private practice. This resulted in more government, as there was now government needed to track healthcare. Ben Shapiro (Yes, Ben Shapiro is the best person, I love him) has discredited Obamacare and Obama as a president a few times. It was a socialist policy, implemented by a socialist, that was evil and messed up the economy. That's the basis of it. "Ben Shapiro on Obamacare" and "Ben Shapiro on Obama" are the videos in which I reference. 

Txgangsta: China is run by the Communist party, therefore it's a communist state, by leadership. It is therefore called Communist China. This is another one of those "It's not real communism" arguments always seen from the people who want Socialism to work so badly.

Germany is currently in the midst of one the biggest unchecked wave of immigration, migration and higher crime rates. Angela Merkel even admitted her open doors policy was a failure, and it will lead to Germany's destruction in the near future.

Sweden has also had a massive increase of crime by the immigrants/migrants allowed to cross into their border unchecked, thanks to the EU.

Netherlands faces growing inequality, as of 2014, it was listed as a major threat to the Netherlands. The Dutch Computer infrastructure (ICT Infrastructure) is also considered a major problem. The Netherlands is also considered a paradox of Socialism and Capitalism, so it can't be called upon to defend Socialist ideals, when it uses Capitalist ideals as well.

"China thinks the oppression is good" yes, communists always think oppression is good, because they can only have their system by oppression. Communism and Socialism are inherently evil immoral theories that can only work by oppressing the country and forcing things upon them. Ben Shapiro said it best: "Socialism is rape, Capitalism is consensual sex"

In 2016, an article was written by Isabella Petroni, she states Bulgaria is one of the worst countries affected by communism in long term affects. She also makes the observation after the cold war, Bulgaria has since suffered from civil turmoil from those who want Socialism back in power and those who wan a democracy. She concludes, at the end of the article, Bulgaria is currently in a worse state than it was back when it was purely communist. You've claimed it to be a great socialist example, yet it is considered too be worse off than it was when it was fully communist. It just further backs up that Socialism is a failure.

Denmark is a free-market capitalist society that exists with conjunction of a large welfare state. That was literally a simple google search away. Denmark is not socialist.

In fact, I found an article that explains why the Scandinavian countries you listed are not socialist, but are capitalist. 

In case one of the countries you wanted to list that you didn't was Venezuela - I suggest not doing that, as Venezuela, a socialist country, is facing hyperinflation and massive national debt.

I could continue, on all the socialist countries you list, but there are always major problems with socialist countries that are either a lot less in Capitalist countries or are non-existent in capitalist countries. 

Finally, the German economy during World War 2 was not good. You can literally look up German's WW2 economy and find pretty much any article and it will explain why it was a failure, not a massive paradise like people seem to believe.

Let me list a few things to discredit the Nazi economy:

Women were not included in the statistics which dropped unemployment dramatically.
People were forced into work. Another piece of proof that Socialism relies on oppression to work in anyway.
In 1935, Jews were no longer considered a part of the work force and thus not included in the statistics, because they lost their citizenship.
In 1935, men who were conscripted (Conscription began in this year) were taken off the unemployment list, because they were forced into the army.
Factories were created to focus on the war effort and people were forced to work in these factories.
The Nazis made a group (Basically a work union) but this group forced companies/businesses to not fire people on the spot, and people could only leave their jobs if the government permitted it.

The Nazi government always spent more than it earned so when the Nazis were removed from power, the national debt stood at around 30-40 billion reichsmarks
The real earnings of the people in Nazi Germany were wages adjusted for the mass inflation.

Germany, your apparent socialist ideal, has gone through multiple hyper-inflations in the past 100 years.
The UK - a capitalist nation - has no hyperinflation since 1551, just before the pound sterling was introduced.
The US - a capitalist nation - has no hyperinflation history. Then again, the USA is only 241 years old. The great depression is not counted, because the great depression affected the world.

Notice how capitalist nations have survived longer and been generally better off in history? Do you also notice how Socialist countries that declared war lost the wars (Germany) whereas Capitalist countries that declared war usually won (England, USA)

Why? Because Capitalism is the greatest economic premise we have every known. Hell, America today is literally the most privileged country today. Everyone is more or less equal, there are no great battles to win in the name of equality anymore. All the countries that need equality are... Socialist countries. Like the arabic countries in the middle east. Saudi Arabia being the biggest one and the closest to an economic powerhouse. Except... Saudi Arabia is just situated well, and is riddled with crime, so if you want to call that your socialist Utopiathat succeeded economically, congratulations, you just claimed Socialism only works because of crime. Which is true. Socialism needs to steal and oppress to work. Saudi Arabia is a great example of that, I just gave it to you, feel free to use it. 

But, of course, Saudi Arabia has an estimate 140 billion barrels of petroleum and owns 18% of the world's "proven" petroleum reserves. They would need to make an effort to mess it up for them to mess it up. But, of course, barely anyone works in Saudi Arabia, they'll eventually run out of money, no matter how far down the line it is, and they will then need capitalism whether state or private capitalism, to fix it.

darthyoda : German economy was a failure throughout the war. The reason it seemed to be doing better is because people were forced into production, AKA: war factories, whilst the undesirables were executed in the millions, so unemployment dropped dramatically, almost non-existent. 

Nazi germany had an income of around 62billion but a spending of 101 billion causing massive deficit and huge national debt. That's why companies had to receive a new currency, because the reichsmark was inherently worthless at this point. You can research the German economy and it all comes back to being a failure, due to the Nationalism and lack of trade with many countries. After the US got involved, German economy declined even more, because they now had their chief trader cut off.

Txgangsta : I didn't say Capitalism was a failure, I simply added it, because I was talking about it. 

What socialist countries are doing fine? Greece isn't, China is communist and oppressed as all hell... Where, exactly, is a great socialist country? 

Before I get into this, let me give you the definition of each thing:

Socialism: The people should own or regulate the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Communism: Everything is owned by the community and it is distributed in terms of what each person can do and what their needs are.
Nazism: Hitler's form of government and economy. A dictatorship and a mix of Socialism and Capitalism(the wrong things mixed)
Capitalism: Trade and industry controlled by private industries designed for profit.

Before we get into this, let me clarify: Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Despite Vladimir Lenin's assertion that "The end goal of Socialism is always Communism." Socialism has also lead to Fascism/Nazism. Socialism doesn't want to give things out based on their ability and needs, it wants to give things out based on fairness. 

Now, let me explain why each of those I claimed are failures are (in fact) inherent failures.

Socialism It's the form of government most desired by those "Social Justice Warriors." Socialism, believes that the top 1% must pay for the rest of the country. They are willing to hold a gun to the head of the 1% and force them to pay for everyone else, under the guise that it's fair and moral. Now, forcing the top 1% to pay for the rest of the country is bad, as you're taking their money away in the form of taxes. This alone is a system designed to fail, as you can't tax a country into prosperity. If you keep taxing people at higher and higher rates, you'll eventually form a debt like the US currently has. The US national debt is currently 19.964 trillion dollars($19,964,000,000,000.) This sharp spike in debt came under the Obama administration, "coincidentally" when socialist policies were implemented .ie. Obamacare. 10.626 trillion dollars at the end of Bush's administration 8 years ago.  Socialism promotes theft, in the form of higher taxes for the richer people and businesses, which actually hinders business growth and is worse off for the economy, as it means there is less production, due to less money being available for businesses. I have a few questions for American socialists:

Why is Walmart always targeted? In 2015, Walmart made 14.7billion dollars, if that was divided and given to every American, congratulations, every American is $46 richer and Walmart now has no money to stock itself, thus it will go bankrupt and America loses a business that brings money into the country.

What happens to doctors? Under Obamacare, the rate at which doctors are going towards private practice has increased, as Obamacare has significantly cut doctor's salary. Say all doctors go into private practice. What then? You now have no doctors performing any operation, unless they're paid a significantly higher amount than usual, how do you avoid that? Answer: You force them to perform the operation, which is slavery. The government pays them which brings the debt higher. The people group together to pay it, which puts the people in more debt. It leads to either debt or slavery.

Would you give Bill Gates a higher tax rate? Bill Gates has donated over $20billion dollars to charities, making him the world's biggest philanthropist alive today. Would you tax him too? If yes: How is it fair that you would tax someone who is the world's biggest philanthropist and has willingly done what you want. If no: Why not? Doesn't that reinforce the belief that some companies are too big to fail? It's either unfair or contradictory. Either way, it contradicts socialist's constant assertion that Socialism is fair. 

What stops businesses from relocating? If the tax becomes too high, why not just relocate? This then drops the income for America and steam rockets the country to bankruptcy even faster than it is now.

Socialism is an unfair, totalitarian system that has not and will not work, ever.

Communism: My favourite thing with Communism is everyone who claims to be Communist constantly state "True communism has never been achieved, thus it has never worked." When asked why it has never worked, they blame capitalism. When asked why Capitalism is the problem, they say greed. Ironically, greed is the leading factor as to why Communism is even a thing and also why Communism can never happen. Communism is inherently designed to be impossible. It is a dream utopia. Let me explain why greed is the cause and downfall of Communism. 
Communists will hold a gun to business owners' heads, quite literally in this case, and force them to give money to certain people based off of what they can do and what they need. So who decides the worth of what someone can do?
The government? Well, that just means the government can be paid more, because they say being a part of the government is the most expensive "skill"
The people? This will spark jealousy between people and cause higher crime rates, it will also cause mass arguments over what jobs are worth what. 
That is how greed causes the downfall. 
How greed causes the beginning: 
Why do you feel entitled to what other people earn/make? If you say "Because it's fair" okay, what stops people from relocating, you've lost people making things and have less to go around, this will make a debt or famine. Also, fair on who? The majority of the people? So what happens if the majority suddenly want more from businesses? Do you do what's fair for the majority, or is it a case by case basis? If you give them more, you've just said everything is worth more and thus have to give every job more, because it's worth more. What happens if this continues to happen until the loss is greater than the profit? You become bankrupt and fail as a country. If it's case by case, who chooses what case gets what? The government? Okay, you've said some people are greater people than others, that's against communist theory. It is also a key point for corruption and personal interest which is an innate and unavoidable thing. It will be exploited. If any of these happen, the communist system eventually fails, because more people do it. When it fails, it is deemed "Not real communism" by future communists and the whole cycle repeats itself. 

Nazism: Now, Nazism mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Some state industries became privatised, but there was large tariffs on import. This means large taxes were put on certain things imported, making them cost a lot more and making production and importing of those things go down, due to a less demand for the item. Foreign trade became largely reduced which forced rationing of many items ranging from fruits to poultry to clothes. Nazism also promotes for the execution of certain people - in Nazi Germany, it was anyone who wasn't a pure white - this makes it so unemployment becomes extinct. However, there is a less work force, thus making less things for people. In Nazi Germany, the Reich Minister introduced a special currency that businesses could trade with each other instead of Reichsmarks. This meant large trade went on without the impact of the failing Reichsmark. Nazi Germany is the explanation of Nazism's failure and the explanation why it will never work - if it's changed, it is no longer Nazism. 




My thoughts:
Obamacare wasn't a good idea that went wrong, it was a bad idea that went right. Obama wanted more government, so they had more control over every aspect of America, it is no secret Obama is a socialist. Ben Shapiro explained it best in his video of "Ben Shapiro on: Debating Obamacare"

Universal healthcare is completely possible in the US. The US pays many other countries which get Universal Healthcare with the aid of the United States of America. Cut spending to foreign countries - especially those you're currently at war with - if you cut the spending for other countries, you will have more money to invest in your own country. If you also cut the military spending, you will have much more money. Say you cut it from $598billion(As of February 2016) to $200 billion, you have $398 billion dollars a year. That gives $1,263 per citizen. Not every citizen would use the healthcare, but you can put it in there, in case citizens use it.

No company is too large to fail. This is my grievance with America's form of Capitalism. They have a system where if a company goes bankrupt and file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a plan is made where the debt is reduced and eventually repaid. It is reduced and repaid. What happens to the place that the company owes the money? They lose money. The thing is, it's usually a bank that the money is owed to, which is bad for the economy again, because the bank - the centre of money for the country - has just lost money. It is not an economically stable thing to do over and over again. If that was abolished and companies were allowed to fail, there would be a greater stimulus in the economy, as more thought would go into decision making and increase general productivity for the country.


The past 8 years of America has been an economic disaster. No, unemployment hasn't decreased, it's another statistical inaccuracy. If someone is listed as jobless for 6 months, they are not included after that. Therefore, the unemployment rate technically goes down, even if it is literally increasing. 

Image upload: 1200x509 totaling 342 KB's.

legacyme3 : The good news is Obama is now out of power.

So, as of 11AM today, Trump is officially the POTUS (President of the United States) 

This is the 45th president of the USA. Now obviously, as always, I am hoping the president does good for ALL Americans. But, that requires the help of the people too. Now isn't the time to be divided, which so many people are bringing about, purely because their opinions were beaten.

For all those who aren't viewing the Inauguration live, or don't know what the Inauguration is:

A president's inauguration is the official transition of the presidential position between the president and president elect. This is the official ceremony for a new president and has made Donald J. Trump to be the official United States of America president.

God bless America, may Trump bring prosperity and unity. 
 

Image upload: 940x529 totaling 51 KB's.

So, if I upload a video, does the Vizzed Youtube channel get the video, or does it just appear on the Vizzed board. What happens here? 

Sorry, this is the first time I've heard of this, can anyone link me to a thread that runs down all the features/everything about it, or can they send me a message explaining it all?


Thank you.

Zlinqx : Actually, mainstream is the biggest representation of something or someone. So, because media representation of Feminism shows what I have said about them, that is the mainstream of Feminism. Also, due to it being an ideology, the mainstream is what is the definition, as it's the representative of the entire group. Feminism started purely for women's issues, and the literal definition of original feminism stays the same - The avocation of women's rights, based on the belief that they're of equal standing to men.

Actually, yes, it does. Mainstream, once again, is the biggest representation of something or someone. Yes, ISIS makes up a minority, but their beliefs do not. Studies of Muslim populations in Britain actually show a lot of Muslims believe Sharia law is the best way to regulate the population. ISIS too want Sharia law, but they go by every factor of Sharia. To speak about your point of ISIS calling Indonesian Muslims "infidels" an infidel is someone who doesn't fit the Sharia definition to the point. They're what is considered more liberal Muslims. AKA - not totally for Sharia law, but in Indonesia, Muslims do follow parts of Sharia law, which, as we have all learned, does not fit into Western societies, but is still considered by them to be morally right. I don't follow bias media outlets for my facts, I look at both extreme sides (Fox News and CNN) then do research on the topic myself, to form an opinion. This, I found, is the best way to ensure factual certainty, or personal fault.

Yes, people have the wrong attitude, meaning the mainstream Feminists that have caused more problems than they've solved last year. A bigger problem is politicians see these people also as the majority of the country, when, in fact, they're not. So, because of this, politicians will pander to them and try to please them, to avoid any massive backlash, this is another problem with the mainstream feminist movement. People's perceptions of Feminism come from the mainstream view of Feminism, which is what those under the banner of Feminism promote.

For the "Men are dominant and women are submissive" my point was actually backing it up. Throughout the evolution of males and females, males have always been submissive. You can't fight biology, no matter how much you try. For proof of that, a transgender MMA fighter (Male to female) had the treatment to change from male to female - have all the hormones and parts taken/added. And, even with all that, he dominates every woman competitor. Biologically, men are superior, no amount of protest can change innate behaviour.

In Detroit, as a black person, you're more likely to be shot than any other crime happen to you. So, unless you class being born as unlucky, your argument for that part has just been destroyed. Also, as a police officer in Detroit, last year, they suffered heavy causalities, due to racism promoted by the BLM movement in that area - The mainstream BLM movement. Physical strength actually affects how likely you are to die from a bullet wound. A physically fit person, someone like MMA's Brock Lesnar has a higher chance to survive a bullet wound than someone who is anorexic. 

"Minds determine generally if you'll be prosperous" Depends. If you're hired to be a professional wrestler, you can be as dumb as you want, but you'll still make a lot of money, if you're successful. Take a look at Ryback from WWE, he has awful mic skills, but can fight and is tough. HE clearly is more physically imposing than mentally, but still has a good paycheck. 

"who are smart enough to know how to defend themselves is generally going to be better off than someone who just has brute physical strength." Well, tell me this, I'll go back to the gun point. If you're smart, how do you get out of it? Say it's someone like Jeffrey Dhamer who just wants to kill you. How do you get out of it, if you're smart? You can try to run, which has a very minimal chance of working. If you're strong, you can fight back and have a higher chance of escape. In general, both physical and mental are equally important. Arguing pro-one or the other is stupid.

Actually, it is a fact, there is a higher stigma for male rape victims than for female rape victims. That's proven purely by the amount of centres dedicated to helping female rape victims. If you look at statistics purely, you don't get the whole picture, so, from a purely statistical standpoint, sure, female rape happens more. However, if you look at statistical evidence purely, you also come to the conclusion that the gender wage gap exists, which has been disproved countless times, so it's not a smart thing to do to go purely from statistics. You need to count all factors. So your "you can guesstimate ale rape isn't taken seriously" has been disproved there. It's not a guesstimate to say male rape isn't taken seriously, it's an observable truth.

Yes, it does, if it's an ideology. It becomes the face of the ideology, and thus, the group as a whole is shown to be as such. This sort of thing has happened throughout history and constantly happens today. They're viewed as one thing, thus they are, because that's how ideologies work. The loudest/most mainstream of them become the representation of the group, thus the group becomes that.

No, it's not an organisation, they're ideologies, which CAN be hijacked. 

There is no "That form of Sharia" it is "That part of Sharia" .eg. Half of Muslims in Britain support Anti-homosexuality - which is a part of Sharia, and is immoral. In Sweden, rapes of Swedish women have been reported on constantly, which is another part protected by Sharia law. "If a man rapes a woman, he must pay dowry to the father, and become the husband. Or the woman shall be executed by state." The rape stayed, but the rest left. Religious courts have been historically proven to be a bad idea. We have religious zones of Sharia in London, but those courts don't overrule British courts. If a murder takes place, they're tried in British courts. They're there for religious code breaking. Which, for Muslims, make it a compromise on British laws too, because they have Sharia courts, which, as we know, will kill someone for abandoning Islam. However, it's still a problem, even if it doesn't conflict with British laws, because it means there is a part of the country which is no longer under full British rule, which is a compromise on our Sovereignty. Which, after Brexit, hopefully will no longer exist.

Except it does. As I've stated and explained multiple times now. In an ideology, the loudest/most prominent voice is the representation of the ideology. If massive amounts of republicans started killing black people, you'd call all republicans racist. Why? Because it's how ideologies work.

However, with the rape study, different people class rape as different things. Some people considered "Mansplaining" rape. Others consider being looked at rape. There are certain things going into this study that haven't been seen. And, what do you know, these false rape claims are by the feminists that are the mainstream. That's why Feminism is a joke too, which I missed out in the original post. Pure statistics, as said above, are misleading. Also, even when anonymous, men will most likely lie about it, due to masculinity problems. Women will most likely lie about it, due to attention problems - another biological characteristic. Women are more likely to desire attention, where men are more likely to want to seem dominant.

It's impossible to judge which gender suffers more, unless you look at it purely numerically. Women face 12 problems, men face 12, therefore they're equally disadvantaged. (That was a hypothetical example, not a literal one) Yes, we do need to tackle all problems, but there are problems feminists are trying to fight that can't be fought. That is what I'm doing. I attacked all 3 groups, not just one, remember. After that, I've been arguing against your points for each part. Call yourself what you want, but you should realise that you're accepting all the criticism coming with it, due to the loudest part of your ideology.

Biologically, they are, that's a fact. Actually, to be more specific, single mothers are the most common to abuse children. AKA: Mothers without a husband/boyfriend/father figure. I'm saying the legal system is biased AGAINST males. Women are more suited to be caregivers, because they take more time off, have the biology to feed them at any time, are generally able to spend more time with them. The problem here is custody battles tend to look purely at the gender, which is something Mainstream Feminism does not cover, which is a big reason Meninism became a thing... A very stupid thing, but a thing nonetheless. The bias is not natural to have, especially in the current year where men and women are the most equal they've ever been.

There is actually a biological law. Human males have penises, that's a biological law. If they don't have a penis when born(And aren't female,) that's a deformity. If there's not a biological law, then deformities wouldn't exist. It's not a biological basis for someone wanting a sex change, it's a psychological one. Actually, it does, people with gender dysphoria, tend to kill themselves at the same rate before and after conversion, so changing doesn't matter, but they're still not a mentally normal person. Fortunately, the conversion I don't care about, because THEY have to pay for it. Even in the UK, conversion treatment is self-funded, because it's cosmetic, which isn't paid for by the NHS.

Sex changes actually are unnatural, by definition. So are cities, roads, certain types of waste, etc. However, the difference is one doesn't cause or is the effect of people being mentally not-normal. It was classed as a mental disorder, and still is, by definition. But certain groups of people got mad, because mental disorders are bad, so they protested and threatened people to get it overturned. But, comparing mental disorders to building is the biggest reach I've ever seen in defence of that.

thing1 : For the UK army, I am allowed to join, even with a history of Cancer, as long as I can prove that I am in remission and am healthy enough to join, I can join.

I can walk 10KM (6.2 miles) without stopping. I can jog about half a mile without stopping in about 5 minutes, so I'll try to work on that next. 

Thank you, I'm going to start ASAP. It's very much appreciated!

JigSaw : I should have clarified, with "weak bones" I didn't mean they break easily, I mean I can feel really cold in some bones, I have some numbness occasionally. But they don't break or shatter easily, it's probably a muscle thing rather than a bone thing, but I hope that clarifies further.

Eniitan : On PC, Skyrim is great, because you can mod it to make it hilarious or just customised how you want it - Charizard dragons, y'get me
Pokémon GO isn't something I play either, it doesn't work on my phone c':

So, I am applying to join the UK's army. I am an 18 year old male, living in the UK (Obviously.)

However, the problem is, when I was 14, I was diagnosed with later stage cancer - they told me I would die before my birthday, which was 2 months away. This caused me to go into Chemotherapy and, of course, lose my health - rapidly. 

So, I'm currently 18, I finished Chemo at 15, and this year I was told I was in remission. However, I still have the health issues. I am now lazier than I've ever been. 

I want to join the UK's military, because I want to get fitter, but I want to be in shape before joining, so is anyone good with health/fitness, I would appreciate help. 

I don't want to get strong, that's not the goal. I want to be able to run for a fair amount of time, and be healthier.

Currently:
I walk everywhere
I fixed my bike today, so I can start biking more.
I eat a bit at the end of the day, but never before Midday, because I get sick if I do.
My bones are very weak, due to the chemotherapy and cancer.

So is there anyway for me to sort or fix any of this, in a short time?

I don't think you understand that the radical/militant feminists have become the mainstream feminists. They're the most known, thus are the face and definition of feminism. Because that's how ideologies work. The viewpoint most noteable is the viewpoint of the ideology.

It's not a gender role, it's a biological evolution. Men are physically superior. Thus men are more dominant. As a general rule. Where is Western societies don't they have equal oppertunities? You haven't given a single answer.

"Minds are more importnt than physical features"
That's the most incorrect thing I've ever read. If I shoot you, you're not going to suddenly shout save my brain, you'll shout save me. Why? Because they're equally important.

I didn't say you said rape is only a female issue. I said men suffer from rape more. Which is just fact.

But, once afain, feminism's ideology has changed, because the loudest in the ideology have bastardized the movement, thus given it negative anti-equality connotations. That's how groups work.

Anyone can practice free speech. Except free speech means the government can't arrest you for saying certain things. You can silence anyone as a personal individual, because you're a private entity. The constitution was made to stop government interference, not public. So, you don't have to stop them speaking, but you could. In any note, I think we both know you knew that's not what I meant or said. I said "why not stop them" meaning why not stop them hijacking the movement? Because they either don't care or agree.

Refer to point of mainstream feminism being radical/militant, you get your answer.

I'm all for them practicing their religion if it doesn't affect others. Except, a lot of Muslims want Sharia law, you said that yourself. Sharia law is inherently evil, so what parts could they specifically want that won't affect others? Traditional Muslims are everywhere, they are the threat to people and I would rather not have them, because they are a problem. Western Muslims, sure, they've been here long enough, they know democracy isn't bad, the western civilisation is actually the best, etc. But when a Muslim protests for Sharia law, you can see where everyone goes "hey, hold up, what's happening."
In London we have Sharia law zones. They don't overrule national courts, but they have the zones which allow Sharia law to be implemented, until it affects other people. Do you really want to wait for the "over time" why not take action now? Waiting makes you the prey, as we've seen from countless Muslim attacks in 2016.

No, and sarcasm doesn't bode well in an argument. But, the same with Feminists. If you are passive about it, but complain you get a bad rep, it's 100% your fault, because you aren't doing anything to stop or change it. As with Feminism, religion is also ideological. The mainstream view of Islam is bad, so why accept it happening? Either: they don't care enough, or they agree.

False, what you mean is there are more reports of female rapes and more reports of female domestic abuse. But, even false rape claims are counted in the rale statistics, women are also more likely to lie about being raped, lie about domestic abuse. So their statistic is skewed anyway.

Again, mainstream feminism and radical feminism are the same, you're saying it as if they're two seperate entities which they aren't. The mainstream of something is the majority view of that thing. The majority view is Feminism is militant/radical, the only people who don't see it that way are the ones who call themselves feminist.

If both suffer gender equality, doesn't that mean they're equal? Or do some men/some women suffer more? Also, if they suffer more, what do they suffer more by? What can we do to change it and what would it be replaced with?

You assumed I said they were better caregivers. I never implied that. In fact, the majority of children being abused is by women. Single mothers are worse off than single fathers. Biologically, women are better caregivers, but that doesn't mean it translates well into practice. It just means it's easier for them to get a hold of it and become attached. But, you see, that's biology. The law system doesn't give fair trial to males, because they're males.

So, if biology says something, you act accordingly right? Well, a debate from feminists is transgendered people are the gender they decide, but that's not biology. Should we follow biological law or should be not? Or should it be a pick and choose case? If it's a pick and choose case, isn't that convenient biology only matters when it helps them.

I didn't make it sound like that was the only thing women face. In fact, I literaly said they didn't face it at all, because it doesn't exist.

Mainstream Feminism is the militant group that hijacked the movement. Hence the rest of the section on Feminism.

Traditional gender roles are advocated for because they are what each sex is inherently good at. It is an innate thing that men are the dominant ones and women the submissive. It is seen in the majority of animals and throughout human history.

There have been examples of male rape victimes being called "p*ssy" and other vulgarities. That's not a gendered issue. If you look at it, rape among males is actually worse, because there is a higher stigma for male rape victims. There are fewer hotlines for male rape victims. Also, honestly, who besides pre-pubescent teenagers blame the victims clothes? Can you give me any evidence to support that claim?

I never said feminism advocated female superiority or that they're the only ones facing problems. I gave the literal textbook definition of it and history of Feminism.

A collection of ideologies is an ideology. They're a group based on ideas. Feminism is definitely an ideology.

False, agreeing with certain points does not make you as such. Example: I agree some people make too much money. Am I socialist? No. Merely agreeing with gender equality doesn't make you a feminist and that's actually another reason people are turned away from it. They try force indoctrinate people into the ideology and it makes people hate it more.

Once again, false, most people who call themselves feminists today are the militant or "radical" feminists spoken about earlier. As said, less than 40% of the UK's female popuation consider themselves feminist. Everyone has seen their beliefs. They're also the reason feminism's name has been bastardized. It no longer means equality, and actually means superiority. Such is the way when a group is taken over.

If this group is "the minority" then answer this: why did the majority let it happen? Why are they not stopping it? Why are they so passive about it?
They either don't care enough or they agree. They're the only two reasons.

You keep bringing up the original meaning for feminism, which you can't, because the original meaning no longer exists. The meaning has been destroyed by the radicals hijacking the group - the main point of the entire feminist part.

I didn't say they were advocating that specifically, I was giving an example of what Sharia entails. It is discriminatory against women, homosexuals, and others they deem unnecessary.

If it's so oppossed in Muslim dominated countries, why do they allow it? If the majority does indeed hate it so much, why not rise up against it? Groups have risen up to implement it, but not vice versa. That screams a lot.

The difference between Muslim extremists and other religions is other religions aren't blowing up every day. Other religions have had a reform and the core beliefs are different than they were 3000 years ago. Christianity follows the new testament which promotes love more than anything. The Qu'ran still goes by its ancient beliefs. The beliefs Sharia is derived from. If Muslims hate Sharia so much, why do they continue to follow the Qu'ran so much? Seems counter-intuitive.

Men in America are actually worse of than woman, today. More women go to college, more women graduate college, more men die in the work place, more omen aged 18-25 have higher paying jobs, men are less likely to win custody battles, men have less outlets for all emotional help. Tell me, where in weatern countries are women more oppressed than men?

Oh, boy, I hope you do mean anything.

Okay, so, I am currently participating in today's tour de Vizzed tournament. I have the most words typed for today, I'm in second place for posts, I'm 8 for Contribution Points and 9 for actions performed.

The problem is, I am in England, I think I'm 6 hours in front of the Vizzed Server (currently 4:02AM) so, I'm staying up, to ensure I retain my position until it's called. I don't know when the daily winner is called though, so I am losing sleep, because I want to win a virtual competition, because I have lost meaning in life. How do I sleep, but make sure I don't drop position? Or when do the daily winners get announced?