Total posts: 12,563
The strongest argument against good God is not merely the problem of evil.
Its not "evil exists = good God doesnt"
Its the problem of purpose.
Think about it.
For what purpose would a good God create this world?
This world is full of evil that literally plays no purpose in anything.
It merely tortures good people.
Plus, there is no equal standard for anything in this world.
Some die in the womb. Some die from hunger at age 5. Some are born with disorders. Some are forced into crime at early age.
How is that an equal opportunity for everyone to become good?
There is simply no purpose in this world. No rational and good God would create such a world.
There is no explanation for what purpose all the human and animal suffering plays, and what purpose will suffering play in hell.
From this, only one can be concluded. God is not good. He exists, but he is not good.
Created:
Child marriage lost most of its usefulness when it was banned.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@zedvictor4
Child marriages were very useful for past societies.
It increased their birth rates so they could outnumber the enemy in both economy, population and military.
It also took care of orphans. At that time, there was no foster care and no one wanted to take care of orphans except map.
Without map, ancient orphans would all be reduced to begging in the street.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Hitler was a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian too. I have something in common with Hitler. But I often doubt that I am white.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The worst point rebuttal in the book was supposed to be abused to manipulate the audience into thinking that if one opponent's argument is wrong, they are all wrong.
The worst point rebuttal in my opinion should not be used anyway.
Full rebuttal is not always possible. In that case, people should focus on best point rebuttal.
Worst point rebuttal in the book was used to ignore opponent's entire main case and attack almost irrelevant argument to make the opponent seem stupid about everything he says. It was supposed to convince the audience that the opponent is stupid and wrong about everything he says because he made one mistake.
Created:
Posted in:
The book is great as an advice to me. It captures the essence of debating. It explains some of the best debating techniques.
It talks about the power of Rule of Three
(Conclusion + Three reasons to support it)
as the ideal writing style for debates and for arguments.
It talks about the power of Gish Gallop, which is a technique I personally like.
It talks about importance of knowing arguments on both sides of the debate.
It talks about researching both sides, learning both sides and learning about your opponent.
It talks about catching your opponent in his own words.
It talks about setting traps, which are arguments that seem weak but are actually impossible to refute, and when your opponent tries to refute, you already have a ready counter.
It talks about preemptive arguments, where you refute arguments of your opponents before he even makes them.
However, there are moral issues with the book.
The book actually encourages ad hominem.
The book is not focused on debating to reach the truth, but debating by manipulating audience, telling them what they want to hear, using dishonest debating tactics such as focusing on worst point rebuttal as an attempt to confuse the audience to make it wrongly believe that if person makes one mistake in debate, then he is wrong about everything else too.
The book actually says that you should focus on emotions rather than logic when debating. It literally says that logic alone is boring and that people dont like it.
It says that you should use stories in debates to try to play to emotions, as opposed to using pure facts.
It encourages an attack on person's character and his past mistakes.
I am not really sure what to think of this book. Sure, its a fun read. I just wonder how many people will abuse it to abuse others and twist the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I am scared due to being a vegetarian.
Hitler was a vegetarian. I am like Hitler in that sense. I dont want to be Hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"Donald Trump is probably unaware that he’s an avid practitioner of a debating method known among philosophers and rhetoricians as the Gish Gallop. Its aim is simple: to defeat one’s opponent by burying them in a torrent of incorrect, irrelevant, or idiotic arguments. Trump owes much of his political success to this tactic—and to the fact that so few people know how to beat it. Although his 2024 campaign has been fairly quiet so far, we can expect to hear a lot more Gish Galloping in the coming months."
Let’s take as an example the first televised presidential debate of the 2020 election campaign. The Fox News host Chris Wallace invited Trump to deliver a two-minute statement. And he was off:
So when I listen to Joe [Biden] talking about a transition, there has been no transition from when I won. I won that election. And if you look at crooked Hillary Clinton, if you look at all of the different people, there was no transition, because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign … We’ve got it all on tape. We’ve caught ’em all. And by the way, you gave the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn. You better take a look at that, because we caught you in a sense, and President Obama was sitting in the office. He knew about it, too. So don’t tell me about a free transition. As far as the ballots are concerned, it’s a disaster. A solicited ballot, okay, solicited, is okay. You’re soliciting. You’re asking. They send it back. You send it back. I did that. If you have an unsolicited—they’re sending millions of ballots all over the country. There’s fraud. They found ’em in creeks …
And so on, until the end of the second minute, when Wallace attempted to break in and end the monologue. He tried five times before regaining temporary control
Trump’s statement was the oratorical equivalent of the media-management approach famously summed up by Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon—“flood the zone with shit.” This is exactly what the Gish Gallop is designed to do: drown you in a deluge of distortions, deflections, and distractions.
As one pithy tweet—now known as “Brandolini’s law”—put it, “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” The Gish Galloper’s entire strategy rests on exploiting this advantage. By the time you’ve begun preparing your rebuttal of the Galloper’s first lie, they’ve rattled off another dozen. They want to trick the audience into believing that the facts and the evidence are on their side. (They have so many examples!) The technique is based on delivery over depth. Some call it “proof by verbosity.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump is the master of Brandolini's law.
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle:
The effort needed to debunk misinformation is much greater than the effort needed to create it.
So yes, Trump is a master of creating misinformation, even greater than Hitler, as Trump does it in times where there is more democracy and much more fact checking.
Created:
Posted in:
The other stories it produced have much worse quality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This story is currently the best that I managed to produce with AI. Thoughts?
I never thought that darkness could consume everything. I always believed that as long as there was even a glimmer of light, hope would prevail. But now, as I stand on the precipice of defeat, I realize how wrong I was. This is my story, a tale of a knight who fought against the darkness, only to find himself losing the battle, his strength fading, and ultimately fading away.
It all began when I received a desperate plea for help from a small village plagued by an unknown evil. They spoke of a darkness that had enveloped their once peaceful home, leaving a trail of despair and death in its wake. With a heart full of courage and a sword in hand, I set out to face this malevolent force.
As I ventured deeper into the village, the air grew heavy, and an eerie silence filled the streets. The houses stood abandoned, their windows shattered and doors creaking ominously in the wind. The darkness seemed to seep into every crack, suffocating the life out of what was once a thriving community.
I followed the whispers of the villagers, leading me to an old, dilapidated mansion at the edge of the village. Its decaying walls exuded an aura of malevolence, and I knew that whatever awaited me inside would not be easily defeated. But I couldn't turn back; I had made a promise to protect the innocent, and I intended to keep it.
With each step I took, the darkness grew thicker, wrapping around me like tendrils, threatening to suffocate my very soul. The air turned cold, and the sound of my own heart pounding in my chest echoed in my ears. I could feel the weight of the darkness pressing against me, testing my resolve.
Inside the mansion, I discovered a hidden chamber, its walls adorned with ancient symbols and grotesque paintings. A sense of dread washed over me as I realized that this was the heart of the darkness I sought to vanquish. With a deep breath, I raised my sword and prepared for the final battle.
But as I swung my sword, the darkness seemed to laugh, mocking my futile attempts to destroy it. It effortlessly evaded my strikes, moving with an unnatural grace. I fought with all my might, but with each swing, my strength waned, and the darkness grew stronger.
As I stumbled, gasping for breath, I watched in horror as the darkness consumed everything around me. The walls crumbled, and the symbols on the floor began to glow with an unholy light. I realized then that this was a battle I could not win, a fight against an enemy that could not be defeated.
My strength faded, and with it, my hope. I fell to my knees, my sword slipping from my grasp. The darkness surrounded me, its cold embrace seeping into my very bones. In that moment, I knew I had failed. The darkness had won.
And so, as the last flicker of light was extinguished, I faded away, my existence consumed by the very darkness I had fought against. My story ends here, a tale of a knight who fought valiantly but could not conquer the horrors that lurked in the shadows. May my sacrifice serve as a reminder that sometimes, even the strongest of hearts cannot overcome the terrors that haunt our world.
Created:
Posted in:
Gish Gallop uses Brandolini's law.
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage coined in 2013 that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
There are three ways of debate tactic:
1. Focus on one best point
2. Focus on 2 to 10 strong points
3. Gish Gallop
Gish Gallop is a debating tactic in which you spam many reasons for your case to make it impossible for your opponent to respond to it all in a formal debate with equal time or equal text.
There are three types of Gash Gallop:
1. Spamming many arguments
2. Spamming many different reasons to support arguments
3. In rebuttal, spamming many different reasons against opponent's claim.
The best is the combination of these three.
In live debating, gish gallop is priceless. With equal time, opponent cannot respond to reasons faster than you can say them, as the amount of words needed to refute the reason is usually higher than the amount of words needed to mention the reason.
Gish Gallop is different from other debating tactics. It does not rely on developing every reason in detail, but on using many different reasons which together create the strong case. Of course, the reasons can be developed and defended if needed. However, the first goal is to use as many different reasons as possible, and later defend those that the opponent challenges.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Biden won by an overwhelming difference of over 70.
Trump wasnt even close to winning.
Trump should have told his supporters to accept the results, yes. However, he is not at fault for their behavior. They overreacted.
If you trully believe that Trump cannot win the next elections, there is no point in arresting him.
Trump is not really competent to be president again. However, arresting him may cause civil war. He has lots of supporters.
It would be undemocratic to arrest him, if he could win. In that case, he would be the will of the people.
Created:
Amidst the whirlwind of accusations and controversies surrounding former President Donald Trump, a comprehensive analysis is imperative to understand the intricacies of the allegations he faces. By examining various aspects of the accusations, we can explore potential arguments to shed light on why Trump may not be guilty of any crime.
1. Lack of concrete evidence:
One argument in support of Trump's innocence centers around the absence of concrete evidence directly linking him to the alleged crimes. While suspicions and claims may arise, it is crucial to separate hearsay from hardcore evidence. In a fair justice system, the burden of proof lies with the accusers, and without compelling evidence, it becomes challenging to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Ambiguity in legal interpretation:
In many instances, allegations are subject to interpretation by legal experts. Given the complexity of legal language and varying perspectives, ambiguity can arise, which weakens the foundation upon which charges are built. This ambiguity could potentially create space for divergent interpretations that favor Trump's innocence.
3. Political motives and bias:
Another argument suggests that Trump's alleged wrongdoings are politically motivated and driven by bias. In a polarized political landscape, it is not uncommon for adversaries to weaponize the legal system, targeting political opponents for ulterior motives. The power struggle and desire to undermine the opposition can blur the lines between genuine concern and malicious intent.
4. Lack of intent:
Intent is a crucial element in establishing guilt in many legal cases. Supporters of Trump's innocence argue that many of the alleged actions lack the necessary intent to constitute criminal activity. Without clear intent, it becomes difficult to label these actions as deliberate or malevolent, further complicating the validity of the accusations.
5. Constitutional considerations:
It is essential to consider the role of the Constitution when analyzing the charges against Trump. Supporters of his innocence argue that the application of the law should adhere to constitutional norms and precedents, ensuring fairness and preserving individual rights. Any legal proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles set forth in the Constitution.
Conclusion:
While accusations against Donald Trump continue to generate controversy and debate, it is important to approach the issue with a balanced and thorough analysis. By examining the arguments presented above, we can open a dialogue to explore the possibility that Trump may not be guilty of any crime he is being accused of. Only by considering different perspectives can we strive for a fair and just assessment of the allegations against him.
Created:
There is too many cases against him. I guess they go for the numbers of cases, as opposed to quality of the cases.
But if he spends 6 months in prison, he will miss the elections.
Which might start a civil war, given how much supporters he has.
Can USA afford a civil war right now?
Better to calm down.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you find it concerning that the foundational components that comprise our answers are chosen arbitrarily?
Yes, I do find it concerning that one can reject conclusion by rejecting reasons, and do so not by proving reasons wrong, but by removing their status as reasons.
Perhaps there is a consistency within our choices, but we have yet to articulate them?
Well, I would wish to think there is absolute right decision, but sometimes it feels like two opposite decisions can be valid depending on perspectives.
In other words, we are unconsciously choosing what information is valid while consciously unaware of the pattern.
It is quite possible that what we choose as valid unconsciously, may indeed be valid, and we might not be aware as to why is it valid and we might even mistakenly believe that it is invalid.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Outside of decision making, when dealing with causes in the external world, we usually confirm reasons by direct or indirect observation. These two are not always possible. When they are not possible, there is no way to know if certain reason is valid or we just assume its valid.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well, which reasons are relevant is an arbitrary choice, usually.
In decision making, humans have certain values and desires.
It is usually a case that certain side, when debated, greatly outweights the other side when being judged based on same requirements.
So I mostly make decisions by debating, by listing reasons and comparing them.
Reasons are divided in two parts:
1. Price
2. Fullfillment of goals
Sometimes certain action fullfills many goals, but the price you have to pay for it outweights the value of those goals.
People usually have similar goals. For example, most people want to avoid pain, want to be happy.
The debate allows figuring out the best path, as opposed to acting without thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How does one treat the property owned by multiple persons at the same time?
Should it be a democratic choice, or is it impossible for property to be owned by multiple persons at the same time?
Created:
Posted in:
Human writers have human touch. I downloaded a bunch of AI story writing apps, and each seems to be facing similar issues. First, there is nothing exciting about the stories they write. They seem repetitive and predictable. The writing style has no charm to it. Second, every story seems like it is made for children, not for adults. There is nothing serious about it. Third, the flow of the story is usually messed up. Some parts that should be longer are really short and ruin the mood.
I didnt try the paid versions, but the free versions arent worth much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Give Palestinians a country and the first thing they do is build a,army and airforce funded by Arab nationsAnd then declare war
Given the state of things and constant conflicts there, it is likely that that would happen, yes. There was already a war between Israel and Arab nations. It is likely they would use Palestine as proxy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I am talking about the math problem, the problem which exists in theory of math.
I am not talking about movement itself or practical application.
We can think of it in a different way.
In terms of numbers.
If we have number 2,
And we want to reach number 3.
Every time we add to the number 2, the next time we add, it must be 10 times smaller number.
So if we add 0.1 to the number 2
We will get 2.1
The next time we add, we add 0.01
We will get 2.11
Next time we add 0.001
We will get 2.111
We always get closer to number 3, with each add.
However, there is no point at which we reach number 3.
It keeps increasing constantly, with each add.
2.11 is larger than 2.1
2.111 is larger than 2.11
It grows with each add
2.11111111111111111...
But it never reaches number 3.
The fact that something can constantly move closer to something, yet never reach it, is a strange problem.
It implies that the path between 2 and 3 is infinite or composed of infinite number of parts.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Forgot to tag.
Created:
Posted in:
How many truths are there?
By law of non-contradiction, there can only be one truth. Just because we dont know it, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.
What if multiple truths conflict?
Some of them, then, must be false. Two opposite things cannot be both true.
Are any truths superior to others?
I assume there is only one truth.
Created:
How does one know if one understands reality correctly?
We dont know, since our knowledge is limited.
- How does one know if the knowledge they have obtained is accurate with reality?
We dont know, but at best we can choose the most likely option.
How can one measure the accuracy of an idea in alignment with reality
Debating and finding reasons. Usually, if one side has much more reasons to support it, that side is more likely to be right.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, better to discuss issues, in my opinion. When there is no discussion, society cant evolve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The problem: There is no step at which you complete the path. No matter how many steps you make, you will never complete the path. The duration of a step is irrelevant, as the step never lasts 0 seconds. Since infinite steps are needed, infinite time is needed as well.
That, my friend, is the math problem.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is an argument to make the age of consent 12, not 0. Some Mexican states have the age of consent at 12.
It probably should be at 12, but there were cases where even younger children enjoy being with adults. If the adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, then child will like that adult.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That means when these 12 year old kids become adults (or even not their age type anymore), a divorce is inevitable.
Child marriages should be allowed. The best way to prevent STI is marriage. Even if marriage ends in divorce, while it lasted it limited the number of sexual partners. Without marriage, children would still have sex. It would be less safer, less guided sex with more partners, if there is no marriage.
If we look at example of Afghanistan where child marriages are common, but also where marriage is valued, we see that Afghanistan has lower amount of STI, STD, lower amount of divorce and lower amount of suicides than USA.
Marriage would likely not end in divorce. There is an attachment that grows over time between an adult and a child. It doesnt stop when child becomes adult.
In the book "The Trauma Myth", there are many stories of children who liked being with adults.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Okay, just answer me this:
If child likes being with an adult and never regrets it, should that adult be punished?
Created:
Throughout the entire history, different societies competed against each other in wars, trying to prevail one over the other.
Different people tried gaining power in society, competing against other people in society.
Such competition always resulted in a victor.
However, every time victory was achieved, the competition didnt end.
New enemies rose, and competition continued.
It was all fine and well, until competition started giving birth to great and powerful technology.
It was a logical path of competition, of competitors, to use technology to win and to produce more technology to win more.
However, technology, by being produced, gave birth to new problems:
1. It is no longer possible to compete without technology
2. Technology made competition more destructive by enabling destruction on a mass scale
3. Technology enabled mass wars, and mass populations. Mass populations led to pollution and overpopulation, and depleting of resources.
By making possible of mass farming, through the invention of tractors, technology made it so that country no longer had to place majority of population to work in agriculture.
This made it possible to have more population available for militaries. Therefore, all countries who wanted to compete had to apply tractors.
In order to compete, country must have great population or be part of an alliance that has great population.
Tractors made it possible to increase population greatly.
Societies that have large populations will prevail over those who have small populations.
This brings us to problem of increasing and not increasing population, both options being bad for society.
Today's societies are faced with struggle of two opposite options:
1. Take meassures to decrease your population, and be conquered by societies who choose to keep increasing theirs.
2. Keep increasing population, causing mass pollution, overpopulation, drain on resources.
The competition between humans before always resulted in winners and losers. That was before technology.
However, today's technology made it possible for there to be a conflict without winners, by the invention of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons made it for the first time to be possible for there to be a conflict in which everyone loses and gets destroyed.
Therefore, competition between humans is bringing humans closer and closer to destruction, irrelevant of if destruction is from nuclear weapons or from overpopulation or from pollution or from lack of resources.
Humanity must put an end to competition. If not, it is likely that this competition will put an end to humanity.
So the historical lesson tells us that humanity must unite into one society. If it stays divided on groups, competition between groups will destroy all.
Created:
Posted in:
@iwantroosevelt
Look, you dont need to call anyone a liar in order to refute their argument, and calling them a liar doesnt refute their argument.
Dont think that I am trolling you or something. I see that you are on the path of getting yourself banned. I am trying to prevent that. If you get yourself banned, you are only doing favour to your enemies.
The new rules are what they are. They may not be perfect, but at least the site is not filled with insults as much anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
So in your world, someone who lies is not a liar? Or you just can’t say what people are?
You just cant say that people are liars, even if you are sure that they are. It is as simple as that. In debates, you are dealing with claims and reasons, and only with that.
Created:
I see ads for buying gold everywhere. I dont see the point in it.
Better way of saving money is cutting on costs.
Saving money and living a luxury life is not possible for most people, but most people want exactly that.
Created:
Posted in:
so if someone tells a lie, you can call the statement a lie but not the person a liar?
Yes. You can call the claim a lie and explain why its a lie. You cannot call the person a liar. In fact, in debates, you are dealing with claims and reasons, not with other persons. How hard is it to stick to that rule?
Created:
Posted in:
@iwantroosevelt
Debates are a vital part of any democratic society, as they promote discussion, exchange of ideas, and freedom of speech. However, when participants resort to using insults in a debate, they undermine the very purpose of the exercise. Using insults in a debate is not only unproductive but also morally wrong, for several reasons. First, it hinders the progress of the debate by shifting the focus away from the topic at hand. Second, insults create a hostile environment that can prevent meaningful dialogue. Third, insults can be deeply hurtful and may cause long-term damage to individuals involved in the debate. Finally, insults are not conducive to finding common ground and reaching agreements.
One of the primary reasons why using insults in a debate is wrong is that it detracts from the main objective of the discussion. A debate is meant to provide an intellectual space for exchanging ideas, perspectives, and arguments on a particular issue. When individuals start using insults, the debate turns into a personal attack, and participants may become more concerned with defending themselves rather than discussing the issue at hand. The use of insults distracts from the main objective and can lead to a situation where the debate becomes about personal views and opinions, rather than a discussion about facts and evidence.
Moreover, insults create a hostile environment that can prevent meaningful dialogue. When individuals start using insults, they lose sight of the fact that they are engaging with people with whom they may have significant disagreements. The use of insults can make people feel attacked and defensive, which can prevent them from listening to opposing viewpoints and understanding other perspectives. Insults can also create a hostile atmosphere that can prevent participants from expressing their ideas openly and freely. If people feel threatened or ridiculed, they may choose to remain silent rather than engage in the discussion, which further stifles the conversation.
Additionally, insults can be deeply hurtful and may cause long-term damage to individuals involved in the debate. When people resort to insults, they may not fully appreciate the impact their words can have on other people. Insults can be hurtful and can cause long-lasting emotional damage. Even if people do not outwardly show their reactions to insults, they may internalize their feelings, leading to diminished self-esteem and self-worth. Insults can leave people feeling exposed and vulnerable, which can have long-term implications on their confidence and ability to engage in future debates.
Finally, insults are not conducive to finding common ground and reaching agreements. A debate is an opportunity to bring diverse viewpoints together and work towards a common understanding of an issue. Insults, however, are counterproductive to this goal, as they prevent people from finding common ground. When people start hurling insults, they tend to become more defensive and entrenched in their positions, making it more difficult to compromise and find common ground. Insults can create an environment of antagonism and hostility, making it harder for people to come together and find solutions.
In conclusion, using insults in a debate is wrong, as it detracts from the main objective, creates a hostile environment, causes emotional harm, and prevents the possibility of finding common ground. When participating in a debate, it is vital to remain respectful, open-minded, and focused on the issue at hand. Debates are an opportunity to exchange ideas and perspectives, to learn from others and to strengthen our understanding of complex issues. Insults do the opposite, creating a toxic environment and hindering the progress of the conversation. It is essential to engage in debates in a manner that is conducive to productive dialogue and to remember that civility and mutual respect are always the best approach.
Created:
Posted in:
No, if someone makes a statement that is stupid and I call them stupid it is completely on topic
You can call the statement stupid, not the person who makes it.
Saying that someone is stupid is not an argument. Anyone can say it to anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
@Iwantroosevelt
Attacking a person =/= attacking an argument.
Just attack arguments, not the person who makes it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Kamala, oh Kamala, what's with the switch?
You're all over the place, it's making us twitch
One day you say this, the next you say that
We need some consistency, it's where it's at
Kamala, Kamala, on the campaign trail
Your message is muddled, it's starting to pale
We need a leader, who stands firm and true
Kamala, oh Kamala, what should we do?
You flipped on healthcare, your record's spotty
One minute you're for it, the next you're notty
You used to be a cop, now you're on the side
It's hard to keep track, with this bumpy ride
Kamala, Kamala, on the campaign trail
Your message is muddled, it's starting to pale
We need a leader, who stands firm and true
Kamala, oh Kamala, what should we do?
We're all searching for someone who's steady
Who can guide us through this mess that's heady
We want a candidate who's got a plan
Not someone who flips like a frying pan
Kamala, Kamala, on the campaign trail
Your message is muddled, it's starting to pale
We need a leader, who stands firm and true
Kamala, oh Kamala, what should we do?
Kamala, oh Kamala, we need some assurance
That you're the right pick, for this new occurrence
We want someone who's got it all together
Not someone who vacillates like a feather.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Kamala just stated her opinion. In my view, a bad opinion. Most of the woke disagrees with her.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as people complain so much about racism in education, it implies that there is racism in education.
That being said, I am not sure if teaching kids that slavery had certain benefits is good in any way.
Some truth is better left untold to kids, who might misunderstand it.
Created:
I mean, surely there is a better choice than Trump. Right?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Everything what people say comes out of heart. If heart is evil, so will be their words.
Created: