Total posts: 1,065
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I feel it just kinda devolved into it, tbh. I make these forum posts so that everyone can see the reasoning and the agreements/disagreements between the two debaters. But I am thinking of ending this practice because they tend to be spammed with people who qant to debate in the forums.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
official sources and science itself are wrong
Nah. I didn't do that. I proved that your "science" was the lowest of the lowest form of evidence, and, compared to randomized controlled trials, you have no real evidence to assert transgender surgeries even work to treat gender dysphoria. I never argued "science itself" is wrong. That would be kind of topsy-turvy considering I based my case on science itself.
I also pointed out, with meticulous sourcing, that the fact checkers are paid by big pharma to push transgender ideology, making them compromised on this subject. Of course someone who is paid to promote transgender surgeries will say everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
What is an "official source" anyways? The fact you arbitrarily apply weight to people who are paid handsomely to bias themselves in favor of the people lining their pockets shows your, not my, lack of following an argument and cogently engaging with the facts. To me, an official source on transgenderism is a randomized controlled trial published in a peer reviewed journal by scientists who did not have their paper ghostwritten and editors who were not paid to push the article through and also have no financial complications for their research, or a source that cites such trials and other higher-level evidence, like ACOP.
Media Bias Fact Check is not an "official source." It is mainly run by a single liberal, anti-naturopathy, anti-intelligent-design, journalist who has an ace to grind against everyone who disagrees with him. Just Facts, a public policy think tank known for their meticulous collection of research on a wide range of public policy areas, already systematically DEMOLISHED him when he made false claims about them (and gun control...).
Now, as to the 55+ studies. They are cited in this policy stance. I applogize. I thought I linked to it earlier and I did not:
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
to say there's some hidden 40%+ that we're just not getting to is ridiculous.
There is when you cherry pick the data, which all those studies did. They either did not accept raw data, or they removed data they didn't like or "normed" it to make a fake result, just like with political polls. To rely on surveys, which are quite literally the second lowest forms of evidence in all of the scientific world (behind experts), to argue "the science" is akin to using the Quran to authoritatively cover world religions. It's useless and full of errors.
Your source is meaningless.
Media Bias Fact Check is run by a liberal democrat who openly calls natural medicine and alternative treatments "quackery" and "pseudoscience" despite websites like examine.com and selfhacked documenting the thousands and thousands of studies proving the efficacy of alternative and natural medicine. Your source is meaningless. But, even more so, you are quite literally engaging in the lowest form of scientific rigor, even a step below surveys, to question randomized controlled trials and papers that stand on the shoulders of giants in their fields of research.
failed multiple fact checks
The fact check agencies in question are funded in large part by companies that are pro-transgender surgery. They are hardly unbiased sources. They are paid to be biased toward transgender surgeries. If your response is to cite biased fact checkers who are paid handsomely to defend transgender surgeries, then I emplore you to look into the double-blind and blind randomized controlled trials, because they don't agree with your "surveys" and "fact checks."
Moreover, the two fact checks listed don't even fact check anything ACOP said. It is Snopes deciding that the AAP is the only leading organization on pediatrics and saying all other organizations are not leading organizations.
Moreover, ACOP themselves have stated they are not anti-LGBT. Their members treat everyone regardless of sexual orientation:
The ACPeds recognizes that many children are not reared in a traditional nuclear family structure. Our members support and give care to children from all backgrounds, including single-parent, blended, and other non-traditional families while working to encourage the married mother-father family unit. While there will be exceptions, particularly in families marred by the presence of abuse, the fact remains that the family structure consisting of a married mother and father is usually in the child’s best interest, and should therefore, be favored by policymakers interested in promoting the well-being of children.
If you spent more time actually reading the links you cited you would have learned these things.
you call retracting a single study to be a plurality
No. I call the 55+ rigorous studies cited by the American College of Pediatricians a plurality of studies. These are mostly REAL studies, studies that have actual rigorous standards, not surveys and so-called "experts."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Since these are private companies, they can moderate their platform however they want.
Except they aren't actually private companies. They claim to be public utilities, too.
You can't be both, so they have to choose one.
I think that the Comstitution's greatest flaw was stopping at government for the declaration of rights. The Bill of Rights should have applied to citizens in their private affairs, too.
We have ESG groups with their Climate pact that include all the biggest corporations, investment firms, and most of the world's richest people, and they basically have created their own shadow government here in America. But all of that is perfectly legal according to the Constitution.
This is why I'm a voluntaryist. Nobody should be forced against their will to live by someone else's rules.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
many surveys overwhelmingly support a particular conclusion, ... I'm inclined to give it some weight.
The surgeys in 2016 overwhwlmingly said Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton. Then in 2020 they were wring again, saying Trump was going to beat Joe Biden. If we can learn anything from this, it is that surveys are not accurate at all, even when there's 50 or even 100 of them.
The Cornell meta-analysis seems to have the same problem. It is all based on low-level surveys and not rigorous scientific studies that account for control groups, double-blind procedures, and other checks to make sure a study is scientifically accurate.
There's a reason for this. The reason is that all the plurality of randomized controlled trials found that gender affirming care does not work.
This is true especially for children.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@Nyxified
@Sir.Lancelot
@Bella3sp
Ok, so how about Sir.Lancelot, bella3sp, and whiteflame?
Sir.Lancelot sides with you, bella3sp sides with me, and whiteflame is a mod and has a lot of experience being a voter, so he can be the "kennedy" of our court lol
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
Most of those studies are surveys or "expert opinions," which are one of the lowest forms of scientific evidence and known for having significant problems with data collection and the most bias.
In short, they are hardly "science."
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Nyxified
@Slainte
@TWS1405_2
Also, I'd like to ask RM and TWS if we include Bones and Slainte. I at least want more than one person who agrees with my position going into it. Everyone has biases, so I'd like to try to even out the biases of the judges going in. Maybe if we can figure out one person who likes my position, one person who likes yours, and one person who is indifferent that might be the best way forward.
Because the one thing I've tended to notice on here is that debates normally end up going to the person who has the most popular position, not necessarily the best arguments. I don't want either of us to have unconscious bias affecting the outcome of the debate.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
I have already shown you all of the necessary studies to show that conversion therapy doesn't work and transitioning greatly improves mental health outcomes.
100% down to have a second debate on this, as I've mainly heard evidence of and read studies proving the opposite. (I know you weren't replying to me).
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
You do want 25k and 1 month?
Yeah I'm fine with that if you are.
Are you actually transgender or are RM and TWS on another bender?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@Nyxified
@Sir.Lancelot
@Savant
Okie. I made the post.
Created:
As promised, Nyxified, here is my rough draft for the debate:
TITLE:
IID: On Balance, It Makes More Sense To Classify Woman-Self-Identifying Transgenders as Women
STANCES:
PRO shall only argue that it makes more sense to classify woman-self-identifying transgenders as women
CON shall only argue that it does not make more sense to classify woman-self-identifying transgenders as women
* * *
DEFINITIONS:
TRANSGENDER: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth
WOMAN: an adult female person
CLASSIFY: to consider someone as belonging to a particular group
* * *
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
_____________________________
Schematics for debate:
- 25k characters
- 1 month for response
- Judged by Whiteflame, Sir.Lancelot, Savant, and whomever else we both agree upon by unanimous consent (and assuming they agree to it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you have to add "conservative" or "not controlled by neomarxist race baiting cultists" to your feature list when searching for a job or a university that means there is a problem.
I agree. My point was simply that conservatives can still find high-paying jobs without sacrificing their beliefs. I do think this country has a cult problem. The cult of liberal or conservative is really beginning to take its toll on the country's overall health.
You can and will be fired, they are quite capable of making up some excuse.
The federal government has to conduct a multi-month review before they fire you. So even if you do get fired, they basically let you know 3 months in advance anyways, since you can literslly get out of being fired if they fail to let you know of this review process, as I understand it.
And I have known open conservatives in Federal Government who are not fired for their political views. It's really not what the media says it is.
Then you step out of the closet (or pretend to) in NYC, LA, DC, etc...
The SAME THING happens to Democrats who "step out of the closet" in Conservative areas.
There aren't any liberals in the left-tribe anymore.
Could be. I never thought about it until now. You make a good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Due to institutional capture (universities, government agencies, large corporations, etc...) there is an enormous zone of suppression
There's plenty of conservative universities with top-tier programs in many fields. For law there's Regent University. For political training there's Hillsdale, there's at least 70 conservative colleges.
Some are quite respected, too. Such as Hillsdale (ranked 48), Wheaton College (ranked 63), Grove City College (top 5 for their region), Biola University (ranked 174), Samford University (124), and many other great schools.
There's also no shortage of conservative jobs from conservative job owners. And anyone is free to start their own business. Plus, in many cities, the local and even county government is conservative-leaning so conservatives are welcomed.
In Federal Government, you are not allowed to be fired over your political beliefs or expression of them outside of work hours. It is illegal, and lawsuits have been won over it.
It's really not as bad as Conservatives tend to think it is, but it's still pretty bad compared to 10 years ago. 10 years ago liberals were more tolerant and less bigoted. They had strong libertarian views and hated totalitarianism on average. Now most of them are completely fine with banning everything they don't like, even if it means getting rid of people's rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
The right-tribe understands what's going on.
I agree with much if what you said, but I believe neither side is truly a victim of some systemic system... yet.
The right is free to do everything the left is. Just look at Bud Light. Their sales STILL haven't recovered and they "apologized" for their "sin."
But I do agree that there is much more of an oppressive force on the left than on the right. Just the ESG climate 100+ organization that consists of the largest companies in the world makes it extremely difficult to get hired in MOST places if your politics doesn't add up to a quasi-socialist, rights-hating, racist, anti-Christian bigot.
And with doxxing being the "in" thing on the Left these days, even if you've somehow managed to keep your opinions below their radar, and you haven't hurt anybody, it doesn't matter. They'll dox you and ruin your reputation with a bunch of spurious allegations (Covington Boys, for instance) to try to force you to fall in line.
There's nothing at all racist with loving America, for instance. America is no worse than many other empires of old as far as atrocities go. Like, if Nelson Mandela, who literally committed mass genocide, is allowed to be revered and respected, then why is it so wrong to like Thomas Jefferson, who drafted docimentation against slavery?
But the 1619 Project labels you a racist for loving America, for reasons that are quite illogical. This is just one example, there's hundreds more.
I'm not saying the right-tribe DOESN'T do these things. They certainly do (all the recent book bannings and drag queen event bannings, for example). But the complex on the left is significantly, by orders of magnitude, more powerful and encompassing than on the right (having activist judges that issue instantaneous injunctions against these bans, for instance).
But nobody is truly a helpless victim, either. If Kanye West, who literally became a living Dave Chappelle skit (the black white supremacist), can rebuild his finances, and people forgave him and just went right back to reporting on him as if nothing changed, then NOBODY is a helpless victim in America.
If you're liberal, you have the ACLU, NAACP, CAIR, and other legal outfits. If you're conservative you have the ACLJ, First Liberty, and TPUSA. On the legal battleground it's honestly pretty even right now.
Anyways, I'll let someone else use the soapbox for a bit now lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
he slipped through their fingers every time.
So I guess Horowitz's report and the recent FBI whistleblowers and the report on Russiagate are all conspiracy theories then?
The FBI was politically motivated. Trump won those trials because the facts were on his side.
He also loses when the facts are not on his side (e.g. E. Jean Carroll). He says he did nothing, the jury found he more likely than not did sexually assault her. A perfect example of him losing.
Trump loses lawsuits all the time. He also wins them all the time. It's down to the facts is all.
makes sure all others take the fall for the immoral psychotic narcissist.
Do you have any proof of this assertion? Like, a credible witness statement, a lawsuit Trump lost, anything at all besides your opinion? Because THAT, if anything, sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Trumpet belongs in jail for rest of his life
He belongs in jail without having due process, the right to face his accuser, or even a fair trial for his alleged crimes? Who are you, Stalin?
Why are you liberals so hell-bent on removing people's rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That wasn't a statute though...
While you're right that, generally, political speech isn't protected, if you are fired for your political views, there's many state and local laws that prohibit your boss from doing so in many situations and you can file a lawsuit.
There's also First Amendment case law to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Statute?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, she didn't.
You're right, actually. I forgot that she was in an intelligence position at the time. Thanks for reminding me. The illegal actions were holding it on a private server.
citation please
James Comey's speech:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent....For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
So she clearly illegally disseminated classified information.
nothing there with Hilary to prosecute
Not according to Horowitz...
And I'll say again, we have no idea if Trump was lying or not because it is simply Trump's words against theirs. Without evidence or a concluded report or anything else it's difficult to conclude anything.
I'm waiting for the court case to finish (since it was determined that cameras can't be brought in). Then it'll all be out in the open and we can read the evidence from both sides. Until then, it's just two people making claims.
They haven't even released the supposed tape that "proves" anything.
But I will say one thing. Considering Horowitz and others have repeatedly found the FBI flaunted their duties in recent major investigations, I personally have a difficult time believing they got it right this time around. Just saying.
But, the evidence will speak for itself when it finally comes out.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah I've heard about BRICS. But it's so difficult to find a complete list of interested countries that have already filed the paperwork.
As to the NK one, weren't they already pretty deeply connected? Or am I mistaken?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oh. I like learning about it, too. But I don't believe most of what I read in the news anyways. It's just fun to keep up with. All the drama is entertaining, ya know?
Plus all my friends and family are ultra-political, so it keeps my friendships alive and allows us to discuss things deeply. Otherwise we wouldn't have much to talk about, tbh.
These days I've been having fun with Quillbot's custom rephrasing tool to read rewritten news stories in different biased slants. It's entertaining lol.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The key differences are that Hillary illegally obtained classified documents, illegally disseminated them, destroyed the proof, and then tried to cover it up. Trump obtained them through a normal process that all previous Presidents had done. Usually, NARA gives a president months to go through the boxes to siphon out the classified documents and hand them back. With Trump, they changed the process, gave him 15 days for a handFul of boxes, and then alerted the FBI.
Also, fwiw, with Hillary we actually had tangible proof (leaked emails and eyewitness testimonies) that she did what she did.
Thus far, with Trump (and Biden) we have allegations from government officials and "anonymous sources familiar with the matter".
We can't make any conclusions yet because we (as in the average joe that doesn't have access to the evidence in question) don't have any evidence.
This is also true for Biden's current alleged bribery woes and classified documents debacle. We simply don't know because we can't see the evidence for ourselves.
Feel free to believe what you want. That's just how I see it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its the NATO sanctions that forced Russia into economical war with the west.
Do you have any quality reads on this (e.g. ones that cite primary sources as much as possible)?
Its the US and NATO products that are killing Russian soldiers.
And the reverse killing Ukrainian soldiers...
Created:
Honestly, it can be a lot of fun if you're the one in charge. It's like a game, but with every move you're making a real difference that will change people's lives.
However, what caused me to leave was too many psychopaths and opportunists playing with stacked decks.
There's so many hucksters working as "political marketers" and some close friends of mine got hurt by them. idk, it's a pretty toxic environment.
But if you're in charge of a campaign, it's actually a lot of fun. You're basically solving puzzles all day and you and your opponents are basically competing for victory on the ideological battleground (as they call it). You have to determine which methods will work the best with what little money you've got, and which messaging will land the best, etc.
The other reason I left is because I knew that, if I continued, I'd have to cross lines I didn't want to cross, mainly helping people get elected and bills passed that I did not personally support. I just couldn't do that.
But I really do miss it, to be honest. It was quite a ride.
Created:
From Freespoke News:
According to the Yahoo News Canada article, they don't believe the hackers were working for the Russian Government but, honestly, why don't they?
Russia is known for having NGO hacking groups that raise money for the government by selling and extorting botu personal data and government data. So why not even suspect it? As usual, the government didn't provide any evidence for their assertions oncwhat was even hacked, so we don't even know if it happened. But just figured this was worth bringing up.
Louisiana and Oregon are the only states that we know of so far that civilians were affected, so it might be a good idea to freeze your funds or get new cards and such.
The Department of Energy and several other federal agencies were compromised in a Russian cyber-extortion gang's global hack of a file-transfer program popular with corporations and governments, but the impact was not expected to be great, Homeland Security officials said Thursday. - Yahoo News Canada (middle)
The Cl0p ransomware syndicate behind the hack announced last week on its dark-web site that its victims, who it suggested numbered in the hundreds, had until Wednesday to get in touch to negotiate a ransom or risk having sensitive stolen data dumped online. - Los Angeles Times (left)
But for others among what could be hundreds of victims from industry to higher education — including patrons of at least two state motor vehicle agencies — the hack was beginning to show some serious impacts. - Fortune (right)
According to the Yahoo News Canada article, they don't believe the hackers were working for the Russian Government but, honestly, why don't they?
Russia is known for having NGO hacking groups that raise money for the government by selling and extorting botu personal data and government data. So why not even suspect it? As usual, the government didn't provide any evidence for their assertions oncwhat was even hacked, so we don't even know if it happened. But just figured this was worth bringing up.
Louisiana and Oregon are the only states that we know of so far that civilians were affected, so it might be a good idea to freeze your funds or get new cards and such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think, the way the law currently works, it's nobody's choice to violate civil liberties over political preference. I.E. you can't kick someone out of your establishment over politics. Though I could be mistaken.
Personally, I think it is a violation of the agreement made between the two parties and causes unjust harm onto one party by backing out of a deal for no harmful reason.
Created:
Posted in:
Howie Carr Show (Original Source):
Tefft, a graduate of Berklee College of Music in 2015, recently moved to Nashville to pursue her career in music. A Cape Cod native, Tefft still sees Massachusetts as her home. She’s been called a “phenomenon” by the Boston Globe and was also praised by Matty in the Morning on Kiss 108.But after singing the national anthem at an event hosted by a certain former president, Carly Tefft’s performances were cancelled at Harvest Gallery in Dennis, MA. Her presence was called “threatening” and her name on the live music schedule was likened to lewd art.
Daily Mail (Right Wing):
A restaurant in Cape Cod allegedly canceled performances from rising country music star Carly Teftt after she sang the national anthem at a Donald Trump rally in April.Earlier this week, Tefft spoke with radio host Howie Carr after she received a call from the owner of Harvest Gallery - a restaurant and bar in Dennis, Massachusetts that features art and music - who told her he was canceling her future appearances at the venue due to 'controversy.''He thought that his customer base would feel - he used a very specific word - threatened,' she said.
I couldn't find a left-wing source on this...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think we do? As best as two people with completely diametrically opposed viewpoints can get I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
No. I didn't permanently leave. Life just got super busy and I had to drop my debates mid-debate.
Anyways, just thought I'd announce my return in case anybody cares. I hope the same people that were active when I left are still active!
I see we have a much broader membership now and I heard we were invaded by ChatGPT at one point???
What did I miss in the last few months?
Created:
What did Wylted do? Anyone have the original forum posts exemplifying the actions calling for his removal?
Created:
Oh, I forgot to add BBC Discovery as another podcast. Though their latest "deep dive" into eugenics (Bad Blood) is disgustingly defending known eugenicists who are loved by liberals by reframing their beliefs and lives. It's also been filled with misinformation about the origins of eugenics, too.
But until now I haven't had any complaints in general except the occasional inaccuracy that all podcasts ate subject to.
Created:
These days I listen to a lot of podcasts. But that's because I'm on the go a lot. Some of the ones I listen to are The Brainy Business, Data Skeptics, Real Science Radio, Creation Today, JAMA Clinical Reviews, Biblical Genetics, Creation.com Article Podcast, That Naturopathic Podcast.
But for research and news, I use a bunch of different places.
For current events I read the World Economic Forum's website in addition to the various NATO strategic commands so I know what's going on and how people are going to try to destroy my life next.
For other stuff, when I'm learning a topic for the first time, I read both Wikipedia and Infogalactic on it. I find they both complement each other and give a more well-rounded perspective when read together (and also blatantly point out why they think the other side is pushing disinformation so I can investigate narratives further and determine for myself which is true).
I also use encyclopedia.com a lot and encyclopedia.pub both for pleasure and for research.
Sources I stay away from these days:
- Youtube videos (most of them are FILLED with misinformation)
- Most news outlets (conservative or liberal, the overwhelming majority are funded by businesses and billionaires with business interests they want me to support). The news is just a sales pitch.
- Most political think tanks (they're fun to read, but they're propaganda).
I've cut my news consumption down to around 1 day a week and I've never been happier or more productive. The news is bad for your health and is designed to control you, not inform you. I don't listen to news podcasts often, but when I do I listen to three weekend podcasts:
- CBS News's Global Lane (for the Christian Paleoconservative perspective)
- CBS News Roundup (for the liberal perspective)
- Hoover Institute's Libertarian (for the Libertarian perspective)
Though, tbh, when I do feel like consuming news media (which, as I stated earlier, I don't really do) I usually just watch the 15-minute National Briefing and the other 15-minute World Briefing from HisChannel. They cover about 15 stories each, and a lot of it is stuff that the mainstream news doesn't cover, in addition to the stuff everyone is talking about. They are ideologically Christian with strong Zionist leanings, so be advised, but they are very factual and straightforward compared to most other outlets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Anyone can cherry pick Scripture and use it for their own motives. It's much harder for people to willfully quote it properly, because when properly quoted it is impossible to debunk.
The greatest commandment, according to Jesus, is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."
From that alone it is abundantly clear that the passages you are referring to speak of a separation between those who follow God and love others, and those who don't, and the separation is not violently caused by God, but by people choosing to reject Him and His greatest commandment.
Love is always hated by the world. Just think about it for a second:
- MLK "let's treat each other equally and judge by character and not skin color" was killed.
- Ghandi "don't murder others and be pacifist" was killed.
- Socrates "let's intelligently discuss things instead of being violent" was killed.
- Jesus "let's love people the way we would wish to be loved" was killed.
People HATE love. It's proven in whom they killed who preached it. All the greatest figures who preached love were always hated, vilified, and killed.
Created:
Geometry.
No pyramids, no architecture, no pipes, no wells. So many things wouldn't have ever happened if geometry was never discovered.
Created:
I'd love to have a great discussion on whether McCarthyism was necessary to end the Cold War.
Not necessarily a debate on it because idk if I am as knowledgeable as historians might be on it. But it would be awesome to discuss the necessity of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The political left is already in an echo chamber lol
Created:
Posted in:
To the developers...
THANK YOU! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
I can use the website on my phone now without having to go to desktop pages to do things. You did a fantastic job overhauling it for mobile phones. Thanks so much!!
THANK YOU! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
I can use the website on my phone now without having to go to desktop pages to do things. You did a fantastic job overhauling it for mobile phones. Thanks so much!!
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, it was contained after the Continental Army took over the airports.
😂🤣😂
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That is laughable
No. It's straight facts:
If you lived in 1775 you would have been saying the same thing about the American Revolution.
Yeah. Because the American Revolution was one gunshot away from sparking a world war... Absurd comparison.
What are you smokin?
Whatever it is, it definitely isn't as strong as the Kool aid you're drinkin.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I wasn't speaking in terms of NATO alliances. That is the only convincing reason to go. But, honestly. Russia has no interest of conquering Europe. Just Ukraine. And it isn't our problem.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
May I ask how it benefits anyone if we back Ukraine?
Do you think an all-out war against Russia is really in the best interests of anyone at all? Especially since China has made it clear they will support Russia against the United States?
I don't see this ending well for anyone at all. This isn't Germany. They don't have a relatively small population. Russia and China together is almost 1.6 billion soldiers. That won't be good for anyone.
IMHO, it's Europe's fault that Ukraine was so easy to take. This doesn't have anything to do with the U.S.
If Ukraine was really so important to their security then they didn't do anything to defend it. They left it to Putin wrapped in a bow under the Christmas tree. They made it so easy to take that Putin doesn't even have to try. In fact he isn't trying. This is Russia on low level.
So why do you think we should begin a nightmare of a war against China and Russia? The 2nd and 3rd best militaries in the world? Our military is good, but it isn't that good. Neither is Europe's or India's.
So, what is the point of this? We let China have Taiwan, why not let Russia have Ukraine? We can't fight both of them together. We need to break the alliance up somehow and then take everything back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm going to assume two things here. Correct me if I'm wrong:
1. You aren't American.
2. You get all your news from liberal sources.
"Gun culture" in America is the group of responsible gun owners who take gun handling classes, teach each other the proper way to store, handle, and clean a gun, and usually use their guns at the range or to hunt.
Gun culture teaches others NOT to use guns for mass shootings, that guns are dangerous and a lot of responsibility, and that, if you own one, you should be familiar with best practices for storage, handling, and usage.
THAT is gun culture.
All the bullshit where people just go buy a gun and kill people isn't gun culture. It's a product of our shitty socialist public education system, our liberal media telling people they are oppressed and everything is hopeless, when they aren't and everything isn't, and the glorification of "thug life" and people who use guns to commit crimes in the entertainment media. It is also a product of our fucking terrible approach to mental health. But none of that is "gun culture." There's a MAJOR difference between the two.
So before you go running off your mouth thinking you're so smart, you should take a minute and talk to people who are actually part of the country you're talking about.
Most of the problems we have in America today stem from a turning away from our founding ideals. It isn't guns. It's the media giving people a steady dose of fear, anger, and cult brainwashing that is turning our population into scared, angry, brainwashed people. And this is happening globally.
Almost everywhere it's been tried, gun control has failed to curtail the murder rate. And in many cases it worsened:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think you confuse gun ownership with gun culture.
The two are very different things.
Also, there have indeed been many times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you unable to access a Bible? Are you unable to see creation? Have you not heard the gospel?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What if it isn't a fantasy?
Created: