Total posts: 9,115
-->
@Benjamin
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with being wrong. I am wrong in nearly every debate I do
Created:
Posted in:
Overthinking auto corrects ton overthrowing for som reason
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I still don't get why this is the issue WyIted and Earth are taking with GP's claim. It doesn't change anything from a town or scum perspective if he can joint win with them.
If it helps I think you may be overthrowing this. I don't care if it is a joint win or not, I would still in principle try to get a win for only one faction out of principle and I think we just have to make sure we are at least in a position to no lynch dp5 so gp doesn't win.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Do you have some specific examples of good arguments or debates I had that challenged you?
No. Sorry I actually lied here. My purpose was to praise you for your skill to disarm you a bit. My bad. Actually reading through your stuff I think the debate with David was your best debate performance and actually feel a bit guilty for attacking a great effort from you.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I read round 2 and 3. You already won at that point but it doesn't matter however I do think con can concede war crimes excessive civilian casualties and concede persecution of Palestinians and still win. I dont agree with those things but I think proving genocide here is impossible Against a good debater. You should have jewed the resolution down to war crimes. David has the opposite bias as you and would have bit
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I will take a look at those rounds in a bit but I am open to a conversation but would want it recorded so I can use it to get more attention hopefully for the benefit of the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t know how you of all people will be able to role-play a convincing jerk. Lol
Created:
I am saying you have emotional investment based on the fact your arguments are usually so good that I doubt my own deeply hekd beliefs.
Created:
I was saying you were better than most people not David, but I don't think he is much better than you TBh.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I am certain I blabber on like an idiot and that video can be condensed to 10k words.
Created:
Posted in:
I learned a lot from that video and will be putting it to use
Created:
Posted in:
I thought 7k was definitely scum. That flip fucked me up mentally
Created:
Posted in:
GP doesn't give a shit about defending himself. You got what you got and will have to make a decision based on that. IMO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Maybe he is saying the God's will the game on DP5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
first result on google with "octavian prohecy" Is
Octavian can interpret the will of the gods by reading the interior of animal entrails, though he uses stuffed animals rather than actual sacrifices.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I meant to say defeat good debaters not behaviors.
Created:
Posted in:
agreed that grey cannot joint win. His role is prophet. I assume if things work out, he can even win after he dies
Created:
Posted in:
bro you need to decide whether you are republican or democrat, because it is one thing to strawman 50% of the political spectrum but strawmanning 100% is just weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ijb1
my reccomendations were good nigga, my problem was not making enough and I think lurking worked to your advantage here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
p
ie gave me a fakeclaim...it's pretty funny if you wanna hear it
yes I am up for a laugh
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So the game will end on DP5. Interest enough but that isn't enough validity to the claim itself. That could mean anything per say. I don't like this claim
His name is prophet so he likely wins if he predicts when the game ends.
Created:
Posted in:
We just have to make sure the game does not end on dp 5
Created:
-->
@David
@Benjamin
take a look. I continued to what david would have argued had he not dropped out.
Created:
I have a new video up where I take Benjamin's arguments apart. He argues that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and here are the arguments against that position. https://youtu.be/EL3VX3K6Zq0
By examining how I take apart his arguments you can likely improve your own debating skills.
Created:
Posted in:
The CC was the nail in the coffin for whiteflame but it was very stupid to trust the cop result at all after it was outted. If I copped anyone it would make me think I was likely redirected and the result should not be the end all be all as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Totally called that’s Wylted made you counter claim jailer for confirmation as well.
That was annoying, we also were given that role as a safe fakeclaim from Austin so there ideally should have been no risk in claiming it. You played well. Had town listened to you instead of RM the game would have been procedurally over. RM still almost lead the town to defeat by almost lynching BK at the end and in fact that part was an easy and obvious no lynch situation as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
I feel scum could have won if Wylted didn’t admit he was scum.
I fucked up several times. I thought I would be insta lynched without discussion if I didn't. After the cop result I was annoyed. By the way there was No kill happening until NP3 and protective roles so a cop should not have been in the game in my opinion
Created:
Most business owners are just as retarded as the general population, so yes they will attempt to cut costs like idiots. A good business owner will look at which option is more profitable and go for that option.
I am not shitting you when I say business owners probably get calls from sales people on a weekly basis who can show them how to increase profit. A sales man for example can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the $5000 solution they are offering will increase the business owners profit by $1000 a month for a total of 7k extra profit the first year, and the business owner you almost have to beg to take the deal and most still say no. They are legitimately retarded. You can see other options as well. A business will opt for mops for cleaning up after scrubbing floor with a very wet scrub. Something that may take 2 employees 1 hour to do. So it costs $40 a day to mop the floor up everyday of the week. so that is $280 for the week and over $14k for the year, and it is still pulling teeth to get them to buy a 1k power vacuum that will save them over 12k a year and that is assuming you have to replace it once every 6 months.
These are really really stupid people running businesses in America, it's why anyone who is not a retard if they can get their hands on a lump sum of cash can easily dominate in the market. unfortunately those lump sums are hard to come by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Are you sufi or do you ascribe to sufism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think it does say a lot about the pro choice movement here. If you listen to hardcore pro choice proponents here they even advocate for termination one month after giving birth. https://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I consider murdering babies to typically be unethical. If you read my above responses to underdog he seems to think that means I am pro choice. Am I retarded leftist now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
here is what chat gpt said when i answered it's questions. I think it is wrong
Based on your responses, it seems like your stance on abortion leans more towards the pro-life perspective, with some nuanced views. Here's a summary based on your answers:1. **Legally Restricted with Exceptions**: You believe that abortion should generally be legally restricted, but with certain exceptions. This aligns with the pro-life position, which seeks to limit abortion access through legal restrictions.2. **Protection of Fetal Life**: Your primary concern in the abortion debate is the protection of fetal life. This is a key tenet of the pro-life perspective, which views abortion as morally wrong because it involves the termination of a human life.3. **Decision between Woman and Doctor**: You believe that decisions about abortion should be made collaboratively between the woman and her doctor, based on what is in the best medical interests of the woman. This suggests a nuanced approach that takes into account medical considerations alongside ethical and moral concerns.4. **Private Help, Not Government-Funded**: You prefer private assistance for pregnant women rather than government-funded support. This perspective reflects a limited role for government intervention in addressing issues related to crisis pregnancies and abortion.5. **Intuitive Position**: Your stance on abortion appears to be based more on intuitive feelings rather than a deeply philosophical or ideological position. This suggests a pragmatic or personal approach to the issue.6. **Exceptions**: While you oppose abortion in cases of rape, you believe that exceptions may be warranted in cases of incest and threats to the woman's life. This is consistent with a pro-life perspective that may make exceptions based on certain circumstances.7. **Openness to Debate**: You are open to engaging in dialogue and debate on the issue of abortion, indicating a willingness to consider different viewpoints and perspectives.8. **Lack of Personal Experience**: You do not have personal experiences that have shaped your views on abortion, suggesting that your stance is not influenced by direct personal circumstances or encounters.9. **No Long-Term Goals**: You do not have specific long-term goals or aspirations regarding the abortion debate, indicating that your engagement with the issue may be more casual or occasional.10. **Acceptance of First-Term Abortion**: You believe that first-term abortions are generally acceptable, which is a nuanced position within the pro-life perspective. This suggests a recognition of different considerations at various stages of pregnancy.Overall, your stance on abortion combines elements of the pro-life perspective, such as a concern for fetal life and legal restrictions on abortion, with some exceptions and nuances based on medical considerations and personal beliefs.
i than asked it why i preferred pro life arguments and here was the response.
It's understandable to feel drawn to certain arguments and positions within the pro-life perspective, especially if you strongly oppose abortion and advocate for the protection of fetal life. However, if you find yourself conflicted or uncertain about aligning with the broader pro-choice movement, it's important to recognize that there can be diversity of opinions within both the pro-life and pro-choice camps.Here are some considerations that may help you navigate your stance:1. **Focus on Shared Values**: While you may have reservations about certain aspects of the pro-choice movement, such as opposition to restrictions on abortion or concerns about infanticide, it's possible to find common ground on other issues. For example, many pro-choice advocates also support policies aimed at reducing the need for abortion, such as access to comprehensive sex education, contraception, and healthcare.2. **Engage in Dialogue**: Rather than feeling obligated to align with a specific movement or ideology, consider engaging in dialogue with individuals from diverse perspectives. This can help you better understand different viewpoints and articulate your own beliefs more effectively. By participating in respectful and constructive conversations, you may find areas of agreement or opportunities for mutual understanding.3. **Emphasize Nuance**: Recognize that complex issues like abortion often defy simple categorization. While you may identify more closely with the pro-life perspective overall, you can still hold nuanced views on specific aspects of the abortion debate. For example, you may oppose most abortions but support exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the woman's life.4. **Focus on Pragmatic Solutions**: Rather than aligning rigidly with one side of the debate, focus on practical solutions that address the underlying causes of abortion and support women in crisis pregnancies. This might involve advocating for policies and initiatives that provide comprehensive support and resources for pregnant women, including healthcare, social services, and counseling.5. **Stay Informed and Critical**: Stay informed about developments in the abortion debate and critically evaluate arguments and evidence from both pro-life and pro-choice perspectives. Being well-informed and open-minded can help you navigate the complexities of the issue and make informed decisions about where you stand.Ultimately, your beliefs and values are personal and may not neatly align with any single movement or ideology. It's okay to hold nuanced or evolving views on complex issues like abortion, and engaging with different perspectives can help you clarify and refine your stance over time.
I feel disgusted that this AI thinks I am pro choice like he is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because politicians dodge questions.
If the question is do you support abortion up right until 5 minutes before birth and they refuse to answer it's pretty obvious the answer is yes.
Abortion law in the United States by state - Wikipedia states all the black states on the map want it banned from conception (with maybe an exception for r***).
I clicked on exceptions and it mentioned the exceptions had to do with the mothers health, there is a link for exceptions so it doesn't appear to ban all abortions just all abortions that are unrelated to a mother's health concerns.
So do you want to ban the killing of zygotes?
no
I think they mean, "the woman and her doctor" and the doctor usually does what the woman wants anyway
That would be the issue. You would definitely want valid health concerns.
Your position is pro choice and I'm not against that, but understand that.
It really isn't. I cannot support a lot of the stuff I see pro choice activists saying or doing. None of them even mentions limits at all. They never speak with nuance, which means they probably don't have anything. In the mean time prolife activists are speaking with nuance and seem to be supporting things like the born alive bill that just says doctors cannot kill a baby if it survives an abortion and than pro choice people respond that the bill isn't neccessary because doctors don't do it, which makes no sense. If a law literally changes zero things what is the point of opposing it? It seems like a confession. Do you really think I would be less welcome to be at a pro life rally than a pro choice rally?
Because I would have a hard time supporting singers arguments than I would supporting the statement that babies should not have their spinal cords cut if they happen to survive a late term abortion. The pro life crowd seems to be making statements that I have an easier time agreeing with
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
- In an undercover video released in April 2013, a D.C. abortionist admitted he would not intervene to save an abortion survivor. When asked about a baby being born alive during an attempted abortion, he said, “usually, at this point in your pregnancy, it’s too early to survive, usually. It will expire shortly after birth…it’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.” Later he said, “we would not help it [the baby]. Let’s say. We wouldn’t—we wouldn’t—uh, intubate, let’s say.”
- In another undercover video released in March 2017, a former Planned Parenthood medical director said that in order to determine whether to provide medical intervention for these babies, “You need to pay attention to who’s in the room.”
- A Planned Parenthood lobbyist in 2013 opposed the Infants Born Alive Act in Florida, saying, “We believe that, you know, any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” Abortion advocates leapt to the lobbyist’s defense, targeting the Infants Born Alive Act’s “fundamentally flawed assumption that this type of situation is a real risk” and asserting that born-alive infants were “incredibly unlikely.” However, since 2013 when the Act was signed into law, 42 babies have been born alive during abortions in Florida.
- In a 2019 interview with WTOP in Washington, D.C., in which he endorsed a permissive late-term abortion bill, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam dismissed concerns about abortions performed while a woman is giving birth, explaining, “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
- Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden testified to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015, “You wouldn’t know it by looking at me today, but in August of 1977, I survived a failed saline infusion abortion…. I know where children like me were left to die at St. Luke’s Hospital—a utility closet. In 2014, I met a nurse who assisted in a saline infusion abortion there in 1976, and delivered a living baby boy. After he was delivered alive, she followed her superior’s orders and placed him in the utility closet in a bucket of formaldehyde to be picked up later as medical waste after he died there, alone.”
- Gianna Jessen, another adult survivor of abortion, also testified to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015, stating, “I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. My medical records state: ‘Born alive during saline abortion’ at 6 am. Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die.”
- Many young survivors have grown up and chosen to go public with their stories. The testimonies of individuals who were born alive during abortions are featured on https://abortionsurvivors.org/. A Fox News interview with Ohden and two other abortion survivors, one of whom testifies he lost an arm in the process, aired on February 11, 2019.
- Late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell flouted Pennsylvania law for years before suspicion of the illegal sale of drugs caused the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration to raid his “House of Horrors” in 2010. Most disturbing among what they found was evidence of the intentional killing of babies who had survived Gosnell’s abortion procedures. These “snippings,” as he called them, involved using a scissors to sever the spine of babies who survived his brutal abortions.
- In 2005, a mother delivered her 23-week-old baby in the toilet at EPOC Clinic in Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see him move. Abortion staff not only refused to help but turned away paramedics, whom her friend had notified by calling 911. Angele could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and singing to her baby for 11 minutes until he died.
- In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby on a recliner at A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, Florida. When she began breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and zipped her into a biohazard bag, still alive.
- In 2013, Jill Stanek testified before the House Judiciary Committee about her experience as a registered nurse in the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where she discovered babies being aborted alive and shelved to die in the department’s soiled utility closet. She said, “I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21/22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome.”
This is the stuff I am against and pro choice people tend to dismiss these stories so I would have a hard time defending any of the above, which is why I prefer to call myself pro life
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Most left wing states banned abortion for fetuses that are developed enough, so many unborn children are already protected. Those wanting to ban abortion have told me that they want it banned from conception, so they would then be, "Zygote Rights Activists".
Why do let wing politicians when pressed won't take hard stances on what limits there should be on abortion? Also nobody wants it banned from conception that is just silly. I never see a pro life activist circulating pictures of zygotes. They instead show pictures of fetuses showing fully formed but tiny human looking things.
Why 4 days? Why not 5 or 3? Or 6 or 2?
I just picked a number straight out of thin air, it could be the rest as well but I googled and it said the zygote forms after 4 days
About half of left wing states already banned abortion this late into pregnancy and virtually every red state did as well.
I have met a number of pro-life leftwing people it doesn't shock me.
This is the, "leave the decision between the woman and her doctor" argument, which is the democrat position.
I know they say that to appeal to conservatives who are on the fence but I think most of them would mean between a woman and her conscience arguments.
I think I am a pretty typical pro lifer. I think first trimester leave it to the conscience of the woman but after that maybe it should be a decision for a woman and her doctor. They should have a medical reason for doing so such as a high risk pregnancy or a baby that is just not likely to make it or if they do make it they will have a very low quality of life. I can't imagine that a conservative would oppose an abortion that is high risk. I just remember stories of Obama supporting into law comfort rooms for abortions where they basically take a failed abortion and have the baby put into what they call a comfort room to starve or freeze and die. I would oppose that. I also heard a story of a woman trying to back out of an abortion right before the doctors went in and the doctors practically forcing her to do it and I would oppose something like that.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, I know, fearful people buy guns because they are afraid, then try to masquerade their fear with tough talk and heroic fantasies.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if you are afraid of the person raping you or not. It has no impact on whether you have a right to defend yourself. Also I don't think any woman who has had to use a gun to prevent a rape considers themselves a hero they probably just see themselves as lucky.
Just out of curiosity why do you want it to be easier to rape elderly women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A 2 year old is a life; everyone believes it should be illegal to kill a 2 year old.
correct
A cancer cell is a life; everyone thinks you should be allowed to kill a cancer cell.
correct, it's just as ethical to kill as an apple or a cow
Some life should be illegal to kill; other life should be legal to kill.
correct, the dividing line should be human life and non human life. Or at least human life that isn't a threat to a reasonable person.
Just be specific; those that want to ban abortion are pro zygote because they value a zygote as their equal.
The debate for pro life people is around whether it is ethical to kill human life or not. The perception is that the pro choice people do not see a fetus as human life or see it as some lesser form of life to a baby or child. SO pro life people call it pro life to show the premise of their argument. The premise being that human life is sacred. Just like pro choice is called pro choice because their apparent premise is that women should have the freedom to choose whether to give birth or not and they perceive their ideological opponents are unaware of the concerns around the bodily autonomy of women. By using the term pro life we can see the pro lifer's main concern is preservation of life and by saying pro choice we can see the pro choice peoples main concern is about bodily autonomy. Saying zygote lifes matter has the potential of downplaying how important a pro lifer sees the life of an unborn child. Plus it is a strawman. I am pro life and I would be okay with the morning after pill or killing a zygote that formed 4 days into pregnancy. I would say it is more likely that the average person sees a fetus as an equal not a zygote.
the prochoice argument and I have been watching debates with peter singer so I am aware of their arguments is that a baby could be killed even just 5 minutes prior to giving birth and it would be ethical. I just don't personally see the difference between a baby 5 minutes prior to being born and one 5 minutes after being born. The view of the pro life people are that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should not happen unless there is a valid medical reason as determined between a doctor and a patient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
The reason Muslims seem so much worse is because they still live in Theocracies
Any majority Muslim country will become a theocracy. Americans are predominantly christian and still believe in a secular government.
Back when the Church was equivalent to the government Christians did the same kind of shit.
This is untrue. Just patently false, the closest you could come to this is maybe pointing out the Salem witch trials but when you look to the historical record it was pretty obvious the women had sought after land https://salemwitchmuseum.com/locations/border-disputes/
Anything you find than after a just a mild investigation you"ll find it is just people trying to lie to control history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
obviously, no one thinks fetus is equal to a born human, and everyone would rather sacrifice 1 fetus to save 1 born child than other way around
Most pro life individuals do think a fetus is equal to a newborn baby or small child,
Created:
Posted in:
Isn't it obvious that you use the terms pro-life because you believe your opponent doesn't believe a fetus or a zygote is life and you want to remind them it is a life by using the term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's certainly a narrative and it's too much to break down here and now.
You mean the slave owning elitist scumbag founding fathers that stole land that wasn't theirs and treated criminals and law abiding people like shit alike, especially if their race was different? Or who?
This sentence has a lot of claims and also may be providing a broader definition of founding fathers than I am but lets take the claims.
1. Slave owning- A lot to dive into, and a moral grey area in some circumstances. For example slaves are mostly going to be free labor on large farms and so it doesn't apply to most people and the founders were divided on this. If you saw a slave being abused is it more unethical to purchase them and befriend them and they work for room and board at your house? Is it better to release them to flee north and be abused by employers and society at large? What if the founding fathers are as bad as you say, it takes some discipline to still create a system where you declare all men are created equal and give the future the power to rectify your mistakes.
2. elitest- in a sense maybe. They wanted only property owners to have voting rights, Not something I disagree with seeing as how America has devolved since then but they also opposed the British monarchy who were even more elitest.
3. stole land- I don't know if we go far enough back everyone did and it was mostly the native americans being violent towards new comers. Plus if they don't believe in land ownership how is it stealing? Also other than the sparse tribes you are talking about a very sparsely populated area.
4. treated criminals and law abiding citizens like shit- citation needed that thomas Jefferson or john adams or george washington did this
5. especially if their race was different- i mean I don't think most of these guys were even slave owners but even if they were it probably was due more to getting free labor than any particular hatred of african americans or the chinese or the irish. Also I doubt they had too much interaction with these people. Evidence suggest though that free black men were treated with more equality than what is advertised. SOme became mayors and had other respected positions of influence. I wouldn't want to deigrate any of their achievements
You see though how you basically took one sentence and put me in a position where it would take me a 10k word essay to defend properly. I can simultaneously realize a few things. This lense to view the past with is heavily flawed. Also these men were far from perfect and I would argue in Washington's case he was pretty close to being evil and yet the system they created. They really overcame their own weaknesses to create the best system ever devised. A system where they could set aside their passions and be purely logical at creating it. I would reccomend reading both the federalist and anti federalist papers to just get a small glimpse at how much logic and give and take was involved in creating this system
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We are supposed to treat people as innocent prior to being found or pleading guilty would be the reason. I believe other western countries have similar beliefs but when the system was set up, these were better men than me and you. They set up the entire system to basically balance the passions of men against the tyranny of the elite. It's tough because if you put the power in the hands of only the elite the masses will not have their fleeting passions ruin society, but the elites will not treat the population as equals. If you put the power in the hands of the people than only fleeting passions matter and the majority will exploit the minority, whether the minority is the wealthy elite or black americans .
So we intuitively get this blood lust to go after these ruthless scum and hurt them, but the founding fathers wanted us to place justice and freedom above these revenge boners. There is also this belief that certainly our own rights are safe if we can manage to protect the rights of the worst of us
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If we approach it from a utilitarian view than it reduces overall pleasure to allow AI to do it. We are still all happy at their treatment but the cops not being able to let off steam means that from a utilitarian perspective it is harmful to have AI do the beating
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Is this based on the NRA principle of more guns is the best way to reduce gun deaths?
Strawman argument. The real argument for me having a gun is that it helps me blow your fucking brains out should you attempt to victimize me or anyone I love. We accept that more criminals will either kill each other with guns or that we will reduce crimes by being an armed society and if you look at the home invasion rates of countries that ban guns such as the UK or Australia, you'll see that they are significantly higher than places like the United States where people know if they do a home invasion here, that they are playing russian roulette.
Created:
Posted in:
I have waited some time to express this opinion in a way that doesn't make me get on a blacklist but if so, so be it. The opportunity arrived. Intelligence agencies will either agree with me on this or hypocritically do this to me, so it's a win-win.
Why are you this paranoid? Even if you assume that one day you will be a world leader, the 14 eyes are the only group to worry about and they don't care. They practice realpolitik and the only analysis they will look at is whether you are beneficial to the 14 eyes or not. If you are not a threat or if you advance their interests you can do all types of sick shit and be fine.
I saw a video of those that did the massacre swollen in agony beaten to a pulp, I hope they're rinsed dry of any capacity to not experience hell before going.I don't understand why this isn't standard practise to do to massacre doers any and everywhere and frankly to many criminals.
I was happy to see that as well. Yes they deserve a fair trial but we shouldn't get in the way of their captors letting off some steam on them.
Created:
Posted in:
I would also like to add that there are differences between culturally accepted forms of violence and random acts of violence. If Christians disproportionately attack homosexuals it is typically going to be random actors and disapproved of by most Christians. However if a Muslim throws a homo off the roof in Gaza than there will be cheering and it will be seen as the right thing to do. If there is some cultural element that makes that random act of violence more likely to occur than it definitely needs addressed. However if the culture at large approves of that behavior it is significantly more dangerous. It's also hard to change Muslim culture because they follow the book and the man. The book and the man are very clear about things like homosexuality and Jews. You essentially would have to start messing with Quran translations over time to address the issue because you aren't going to convince them to interpret what is clearly written to mean something more acceptable to larger society. The only way to do it is a CIA program where you prop up like 5 or 6 muslim scholars start pushing their content hard and then do another maybe similar program where you take the most problematic muslim influencers and start propagandizing that they are Gay or crack heads or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Atheist fundamentalists will engage in different repressive tactics than the religious. White nationalist movements are essentially an atheistic type of fundamentalism that would do something like that, but you can see these violent tendency on leftwing atheistic fundamentalists as well, just not directed at homosexuals. Like the famous bikelock guy who attacked people for wearing red hats, or antifa who used violence to overtake and rob small and big businesses alike.
If we just look at homosexuality than no intersectionalists are not going to physically attack them on that characteristic alone, it would be more like the white kid walking to school with dreadlocks being physically attacked for cultural appropriation. The lumpen proletariat will not be attacked until a marxist revolution is complete, but even assuming it is never complete than physical attacks and thought stopping behavior is going to occur. Here are some favorite slogans at leftist gatherings
1. Punch a nazi (they have a very liberal definition of Nazi that even encapsulate zionist Jews apparently)
2. The only good cop is a dead cop
3. No justice no peace
It's a different type of violence and I would say that not all of the violence is physical if that makes sense. For example if a Christian wants to stop free speech by banning porn than while not directly violent, we do know that the responsibility to impose that ban would fall on police who necessarily need to use violence to enforce the ban. The intersectionalists will use a similar type of violence in addition to the physical violence. Make an edgy meme and work for somebody else, or even a meme that is innocent but they take as edgy, your boss will get 100 harassing calls demanding you are fired. Own a business and do the same, be prepared to get review bombed and to have employees threatened on the phone. We also know that doxxing campaigns are also a threat of violence shaded with plausible deniability to say "I know who you are and where you are". It's meant as a type of censorship as well and enforced by threats of violence.
So essentially you are right, the fundamentalist tendencies present in different ways, and some ways are worse than others. Christian fundamentalists will ban Gay marriage, lefty political fundamentalists will not, Muslim fundamentalists will throw them off of a roof. There are zero openly gay couples in palestine unless it is dumb Israeli settlers who care very little for their own safety.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That's part of the reason for the invasion. If Ukraine became NATO allied there would be placements of NUkes there. There was also the added benefit of taking over a large trade route as well and improving the economic condition of Russia. Giving them nuclear weapons would result in an attack on the United States even f Russia does retreat, and nukes would most likely be hand held tactical nukes. We all want to use hand held tactical nukes in war and russia has them ready to go as well, but everyone is scared that hand held tactical nukes even if used against non nuclear countries would be seen as the equivalent to launching nukes and it would set off a chain reaction. So the last thing we want to do is escalate that. There is no question that we would destroy Russia very easily but it would result in the loss of a lot of American lives even non military lives and any president that greenlit something like that would likely cause his party to be locked out of power for the next 20 years.
The invasion of the Ukraine makes Nato countries nervous because it acts as kind of a buffer between some NATO countries and Russia, but it doesn't really weaken NATO, it only postpones or slows down Nato gaining progressively more and more of a tactical advantage against Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
I don't know that religion is the issue since we see some similar tendencies in certain philosophies or schools of thought. For Christians and Muslims you have the fundamentalists. The Muslim fundamentalist will throw fags off of roofs, and the christian fundamentalist will oppose liberty through things like censorship. We see that intersectionalists often have a lot of the same tendencies as religious fundamentalists. So there is a type of mind virus we are susceptible to just from being human and whether we reject religion or not, whether we approach religion from a very individualistic point of view or not, if we don't watch ourselves we can be ensnared by similar mind viruses. I call them egregores. Of course these egregores exist on smaller less nefarious levels as well, but for the most part they serve their own energetic means and not humans.
Created: