Youtube comments of Actual Justice Warrior (@ActualJusticeWarrior).
-
2200
-
2100
-
1000
-
672
-
615
-
600
-
495
-
458
-
433
-
400
-
386
-
375
-
369
-
366
-
331
-
319
-
319
-
311
-
305
-
303
-
302
-
302
-
278
-
272
-
266
-
259
-
254
-
253
-
242
-
241
-
240
-
233
-
223
-
221
-
217
-
217
-
207
-
205
-
195
-
193
-
191
-
190
-
189
-
189
-
188
-
176
-
171
-
170
-
169
-
166
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
154
-
154
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
151
-
149
-
146
-
146
-
144
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
141
-
139
-
138
-
136
-
136
-
133
-
133
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
121
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
117
-
116
-
113
-
111
-
111
-
109
-
106
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Donatello Viani the Florist case, joined with the gay cakes case, & also was heard last week. Washington's State Supreme Court ruled on it in February, they appealed to the Supreme Court & once again it was literally argued only 7 days ago. You should probably check your facts before trying to slip them by me dude. Furthermore, the gay marriage decision is not necessarily applicable here, in that case you had the state governments individually deciding what a marriage was, which caused problems because those decisions were tied to numerous Federal benefits. So the Feds could conceivably treat the same exact couple differently when it comes to Social Security/death benefits, depending on their state's laws. This is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "Skim milk marriage" line of questioning was alluding to. So that did create an equal protection under the law problem.
These cases are about whether or not the government can compel private citizens to participate in something they find morally objectionable against their will. Completely different issues, 1 is related to the equal protection clause the other is a test of how broad the interstate commerce clause is. I may make a video on jurisprudence, & expand upon these points in the future, look for it.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
This is one of the saddest videos ever. A complete misrepresentation of what's happening. Students are allowed to form groups on campuses, they raise money for their own groups with events, & all groups are allocated a flat amount from the school, or a proportional amount based on # of members from the student activity fees, at the end of the year, or semester, the students usually do a big event, where they will use their budget, to throw a party, or invite someone to speak. So the question is, should everyone be allowed to operate under the same rules, or is it cool to restrict libertarians & conservatives only.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
You're completely wrong, one of them admitted to the attempted robbery, another took the 5th. 1 approached, started a conversation, demanded money, the others came to crowd around, they were armed, had past criminal convictions for stealing & assault, but sure, we're going to pretend that they were just on their way to the arcade to play Pacman. Also I said they were armed with sharpened screwdrivers, you can deny it all you want
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
+Maou Never said Communism was Democratic Socialism. Venezuela is a Democratic Socialist State. European states are Capitalist with a bunch of social programs. Conflating them with Socialist states is idiotic, their economies are way more similar to ours. Venezuela's collapse has nothing to do with oil & everything to do with Democratic Socialism, there are plenty of other countries where the oil sector dominates the economy that didn't collapse. Venezuela siezed property from their own citizens, & foreign manufacturing plants like GM. State ownership of production is a socialism, the seizing of GM caused outside companies to flee for in fear of seizure. Citizens stopped producing after the land grabs because the state could just take anything, this caused unemployment, printing of money to import goods to do hand outs to the newly unemployed, which caused inflation, the response to inflation was price controls, which caused shortages, & more manufacturers to close, which caused more unemployment, which led to more money printing, & more inflation, then more price controls. Capitalist economies diversify, the oil didn't kill Venezuela, the high prices temporarily hid the problems inherent in Socialsm. All of the policies that failed were Socialist. Don't get twisted.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Bhaya Omkar Sandhu you didn't even respond to my actual comment. I explained clearly that I don't support unlawful police actions. However, the narrative that Roof was taken to BK is false, that he was offered special treatment, is false, that the cops were sympathetic to Roof, was also false.
The reason Roof was treated by the book, was due to the high profile nature of the case. You are trying to compare a police response, to a high profile case, where the police knew exactly who he was, with cases involving unknown people at the time of their encounter. Do I want, & advocate for fair treatment of all suspects. Yes. But you have to compare like with like. & when your goal isn't to try & take advantage of a horrific crime to promote your political narrative, you can see that Roof's treatment, was not special, it was proper. The reason this was done by the book was not because he was white, but because of the high profile nature of the case. I stand by everything stated in my video
9
-
9
-
Guess you didn't read the pinned comment your counter is to bring up driving & construction. Because crop production is more essential than driving, or construction work, & we know a certain amount of people will die doing those activities, therefore the obvious inconsistency in your argument isn't valid. Unless I'm prepared to ban those less essential activities, I can't complain about the necessary deaths for crop production. If this is your defense I win & you lose.
I can counter that by saying food production is more essential than driving or construction work, we know a certain amount of people will die doing those activities, so if your not prepared to ban those less essential activities, you can't complain about the animal deaths in food production.
Another way to phrase this would be: unless you believe it's okay to kill jews for wheat because it's okay for jews to die in car accidents, you are holding a double standard by deploying this logic in an animal context.
Now you counter with "you don't need meat to survive" or "meat isn't essential to food production", & I'll counter with you don't need wheat to survive, "wheat isn't essential to crop production" & we're back to square 1. Game over dude, save some of your dignity & concede. Or make your response & amplify your embarrassment even more.
Also if you aren't comparing allied powers to Nazi's what are you comparing. Do you have exact numbers on who killed who by country? Who is this we?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Williford was not in the Church at the time of the shooting, he was home. No one in the Church was armed, so it's a bit disingenuous for you to claim a 1-29 there. As far as I know there was never a bill to ban bump stocks, as a bump stock was only used in one shooting and the executive branch immediately asked regulators to review whether or not they could be banned under current law. As for the no fly list, it's a due process issue. The argument against a "no fly no buy" law is that if the government can strip you of your constitutional rights via placing you on a secret list without due process of law, then you don't have that right anymore. By contrast planes are owned by private companies & you can already be barred from flying on a plane for literally any reason, no matter how arbitrary. There's also a ton of mistakes made with the no fly list, 5 year olds have been prevented from getting on a plane, congressman, senators, including Ted Kennedy, who was literally the most famous senator in the nation, & a member of the most famous political family in history ended up on the list by accident. There is no oversight for the no fly list, & no way to appeal it, & if there is evidence that the people on the list have substantial ties to terrorism, they should probably be arrested, not informed at the airport that the government is on to them.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Dude you just lost. You just said it's okay to kill humans & animals for wheat, even outside of survival, need, & essential, contexts. Now the only way to in make that a consistent position, was if you also believed it was ethical to kill humans & animals for meat outside survival, need, & essential contexts. Here's what you fail to understand, you literally cannot win. If you try & remain consistent, you come up with everything is unethical or everything is ethical. Either way, you do not hold the ethically superior position. If you say one is okay but not the other, your ethical values are not consistent & you do not hold the ethically superior position. So take some time, try & wrap your mind around it. You just defeated yourself.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Bhaya Omkar Sandhu You see what's happening, I'm presenting you with facts & you are just in full denial mode. You're not even making sense, the FBI handled the email investigation, they proved that she did have classified emails on her private server. They didn't recommend indictment for political reasons. Are you trying to tell me that Wilson is as protected as Hillary Clinton? Do you not believe the DOJ report that said that the Ferguson Police were over ticketing black people in Ferguson? Do you not believe the DOJ report that said that Stop & Frisk, was done in an unlawful way under Bloomberg in NYC? How about the one against Joe Arpaio in Arizona?
Look I get it, it's hard to admit that you're a reactionary who only believes in things that support your own bias, so I don't expect you to acknowledge how simple you're being. I really hope that you think about my questions though. Think about what it says about you, that you can on one hand, ignore 3 autopsies, blood spatter patterns, & other forensics, because the source is untrustworthy, whilst simultaneously unquestioningly accepting info from the same sources that you like.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
So many non-points in here it's amazing, never said drug dealing wasn't a victimless crime, I specifically talked about Bloomberg's Stop & Frisk program & how it was run incorrectly under him. You need reasonable suspicion for a search of a person in public, not a warrant, maximum for it is probable cause. Furthermore, your theory that murder rate in NYC is down because it's easier to get rid of a body now, when the city is, more populated & police have way better forensic technology at their disposal is retarded. Even if the body is found in New Jersey, if they are killed in NYC the murder still is counted for NYC. If the reason for the decline in NYC & the difference in per capita murder rate between it & Chicago, was that the bodies were dumped in in NJ & counted in NJ murder rates. You don't think someone would find it a little suspicious, that the 1500 New York resident's bodies were being discovered in NJ every year? Terrible reasoning on your part all the way around
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Thanks. I would've had clips from the debate, but I saw that DMCA notice thing, & I'm way too small to get one of those. Jon is an entertainer, he's not used to that tactic on framing the debate, & he wasn't prepared with accurate numbers. That'll lead you to say some dumb sounding things. However, I think the media framing him as a neo-nazi is nuts. Furthermore, these white nationalists look to attach themselves to prominent people all the time, so even saying this tiny, tiny, minority of people are actually fans of this Iranian-Hungarian immigrant youtuber, is incredibly questionable. They've attached themselves to PewdiePie, as you may know, & Taylor Swift before. Just to grab attention
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Again it's not about whether a death is essential or not, it's about the context: We don't mind potentially becoming part of a death statistic for some reasonable purpose that truly helps the common good, we do mind being specifically targeted and murdered for some random individual's personal gain. As for your "Crop production clearly falls into the former and corpse consumption the latter, category" statement. That is special pleading, you need to justify that. I can just as easily put wheat consumption in the latter category & food production in the former. If you make this categorical separation in the wheat context you need to make it in the meat context as well. Try to process that.
To put it simply you still have not answered my question, because you cannot. So you go back to "crop production" which falls apart when I mention food production. So one more time, if it's not ethical to kill an animals for meat, outside of the same context you'd kill a human for meat, why is okay to kill animals for wheat, outside of the same context you'd kill a human for wheat. We agree on survival, we agree on when it's neccesary, & when it's essential. Now explain why it's okay outside of survival, outside of when it's neccesary, & outside of when it's essential. I bet you can't without admitting a double standard, or special pleading.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
+The Investigamer Sarkessian refused to do that event, the Utah University did not dis-invite her. So first example was wrong. Ana Kasparian claims this happened to her, with very little info, we don't know if it was a public or private university, we do know that she wasn't invited by a student group, the administration was asked to bring her, they refused. I think they should've brought Ana but that's not equivalent. Chelsea Manning was not dis-invited, Harvard was going to honor Manning as a visiting fellow, they decided not to after backlash, nobody is saying the conservative speakers should be honored by the Uni. Can I get a name for these Syrian journalists? Maybe that'll be your one good example, but all of the ones you listed are wrong.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Steven Owen I didn't admit to anything, I said what study I was responding to, he didn't. You're arguing semantics, also I'm not apart of the Skeptic "Community" or any other "community" furthermore, defending the rights of the accused isn't anti-minority. Also women, (presumably who we're talking about) are not a minority. You're literally arguing semantics, claiming that I didn't do enough research. When I was answering a question that referenced a non-specified study. I said in my video, that there was no way to know what he was referring to, because when you're intentionally vague, you can always just claim, or have other people claim you, were referring to something else. If you have a study for me to look at, then send it. I clearly stated why I believe criminal law should be based on facts.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+christy contois There were certain things. (Personality-wise) I enjoyed. It also seemed like they were upfront about their perspective most of the time. (For reference, I started seeing their videos in like 06' 07') However, now & really in the past 2-3 years, they've transformed from people who post 10 videos a day, with 1 or 2 with bad or cringey information. To people that post 8 or 9 out of 10 bad videos with bad info. Now, even when the story is non-political & fun, they somehow virtue signal constantly. Reject any constructive criticism, & proclaim that they hold the moral high ground.
Basically I used to watch, & enjoy them covering the news because at least half the time, we'd have an honest disagreement, but now they're clearly just lying, & misrepresenting. It's so frequent its can't be accidental.
Anyway after you finish video, let me know what you think
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I literally debunk every 1 of these points in this video, the DNA matched Jones, the description matched Jones as shown in the transcript & in the interview of the witness. Julius told both his lawyers he wasn't home, he is placed near the scene by multiple witnesses, including his girlfriend who testified against him, who also could ID the gun & recieved jewelery from the robbery, a restraunt worker who saw him with Chris in the parking lot take off after the Suburban, & a neighbor of King after the murder. Jordan was given life with all but 30 years suspended, was released due to rule changes in the department of corrections after the trial that could not be foreseen over the objection of prosecutors. 2 of the 3 prisoners are killers 1 who killed an infant by pouring scalding water on it's genitals, both are pathological liars, both came forward at trial, 1 failed a polygraph, & they were deemed non-credible repeatedly post trial. The 3rd came forward in 2019, also non credible & they are all getting money flooded into their prison commissary accounts, by Jones's insane supporters. You have 0 case at all
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Daan Kosmosdwergster the right to life. I'll try & explain it super simple. A massacre is a violation of multiple persons right to life, a murder is also a violation of that right but for an individual. They are both a rights violation, so under a rights argument, both are ethically wrong. Now if you say one is worse, (the massacre) because more people died, then you are making an argument based on scale. Substitute the "massacre" for meat industry slaughtering animals, & the "murder" for killing animals intentionally with killing animals with pesticides during crop production, & again the only difference is scale, aka amount of dead, or suffering. I would say both the massacre, & murder, were ethically wrong, vegans say slaughtering animals for meat is wrong, (if not necessary) but claim that intentionally killing them for wheat, (if not necessary) is not wrong. That's inconsistent, if you're arguing one is worse, you have to acknowledge both are wrong. That's what I mean from moving from the rights based argument to the suffering based one.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I never said people need to get over slavery, I would never say that to someone who was actually enslaved. People should learn about it. The institution of slavery ended around 150 years ago in the United States, Civil rights was around 50 years ago. I'm fine with discussing the impact of past discrimination on certain groups of people too. However, if you claim racism or institutional racism is the cause of something, I need to see the racist or which institution is racist. If someone in this case the media is lying about something to make it seem racist when it's not, then I'll point that out too.
As for Colin Kaepernick, he isn't & hasn't been good for a few seasons, he isn't the same player that he was in the 49ers Superbowl Season. His QBR last year was among the worst, the only thing keeping it above the absolute worst was his skills as a running QB. Running for a QB is not nearly as valuable as passing. If Kaepernick were better he'd have a team, & no one would really care about his kneeling. That being said there are a small number of teams that aren't any better than him at QB that are factoring in the kneeling in their decision process & I think that's nonsense. My position is if you think he can help you win or improve your team, & the only thing deterring you is his kneeling, then I'm against that, because you're job as a GM is to make your team better. In my opinion it's a mixture of him not being good & the protest, but it's mostly him not being that good, because you can kill someone & play if you're a star
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Whether or not someone is being victimized is a point of logic. Obviously you can be sympathetic to the persons family. But the guy who sells a gun is not responsible if the purchaser of that weapon shoots his or herself or others. A bartender is not responsible for alcoholism or drunk driving, McDonald's is not responsible for obesity or diabetes. There are instances where the seller is responsible, like when the customer has no clue what they are buying, either due to negligence or malice. If a drug dealer mixes his drugs with an additive that is unexpected I'd agree with you. As a McDonald's is responsible for not warning of an allergen in the food, or negligence that leads to cross contamination, the same is true for bartenders and alcohol companies. I'm very sympathetic towards those who have lost friends & families to overdoses. But I'm not going to pretend that those people didn't assume the risk. I am going to advocate for legalization and decriminalization, so addicts can get treatment, be weened of these addicting substances, & know exactly what's in what they are buying, just like any other product out there. I'm sorry to hear that you are un-subbing, I hope you find the more palatable content you seek.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Roads are paid for by the gas tax/tolls, there are also private roads. I love how your first go to example involves you scraping the bottom of the barrel. I't's hilarious that every lefty thinks this is a gotcha even though roads are a tiny portion of the budget, and they are funded by taxes on usage (not on income). Water is a local government function, & the idea that if not for the government, nobody would want or produce clean water is idiotic. Right now people pay way more money willingly for bottled water. Paying for the Military makes sense, & I'm not opposed to cutting their budget intelligently. Makes no sense to use the Military as a jobs program by over building useless equipment. Covering Veteran healthcare also makes sense, but again it's not really a money issue. The VA insanely does everything on paper, you can cut in places there. I don't even think the wall is super useful, but it would be a tiny portion of the budget. 70% of the Budget is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & misc Welfare programs. The reason conservatives talk about that, is because it's the biggest part of the budget.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+manband20 You're right on that Philip DeFranco has the correct policy on that by comparison. If there's a manhunt name the person, show their face. It's the after that part, where the attention becomes a problem. Reading the Manifestos, getting super in depth of who they were after they're dead. That stuff needs to go, bury it on page 119, & when they're caught, or captured say their name as little as possible. I don't know if this is true, but maybe the showing the impact on victims/family/friends, will deter some people on the fringe seeking that acknowledgement. If we the killers were just foot notes, to the story of those who are lost, it might minimize the desire to emulate their actions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The point would be moot, not mute. The watch time for this & the other Battening video is already in the toilet, we're talking an average of 1 minute due to the dislike mob.
But to answer your question, I explain what I think are valid criticisms of No BS, & invalid in the video. I also went on a stream with No BS, on his channel & explained the valid points to him directly, & got actual responses. Look I understand that this is most likely the first time you've seen a video of mine & you're probably coming at this from a perspective of seeing Battening's video, & thinking I'm some die hard No BS fan. But that's not the case, months before this drama, No BS reached out to me based on information in one of my older videos. I gave him my advice & we get along personally. Many months later I watched Battening's video, & noticed some clear misrepresentations in a few areas & I responded to those specific points. I didn't try to rebuke everything in it. I just knew the full context of a few of the video clips he used & I responded based on that. That's it dude.
I hope that clarifies the videos for you. You don't have to watch it because it's old nonsense drama that I've put behind me already. But I'm not going to go out of my way to keep adding context when you're actively rejecting it. Enjoy your life
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
sector910ify Thank you for acknowledging that. For the record I actually never intended to refute Veganism, which as many people pointed out is about reducing harm as much as possible. I have nothing against a plant based diet, or Vegans. I'm still talking to Vegan Revolutions about the best ways to try veganism, so I can better stay the course. I only sought to debunk this line of argumentation. That's it, I don't want to convert anyone, I just love these kinds of philosophical debates.
I give you credit though, I'm looking up, & will probably spend a shit ton of time trying to figure out how long you can live off of "this food only" diets. I found a guy who ate instant ramen for 10 years. So thank you, for bringing up something new up that I find really interesting. If you have food tips, (like things that I can substitute for cheese) or any other recommendations that you'd like to share, I would appreciate hearing them going forward.
2
-
2
-
2
-
What is the point of killing for meat if not for food supply? If you wanna say that meat is unnecessary therefore the killing is needless killing then I'll once again state that wheat is unnecessary therefore the killing needless. So once again why is it okay to kill for wheat, & not meat? If you're really so confused, on how I'm turning your argument back on you, all I'm doing is replacing your variables with my own, to see if your logic follows, then I ask you to explain your inconsistency.
It's very simple, Door number 1. You're okay with intentionally killing for food, & you have no right to lecture me on ethics, because both involve that. Door number 2. you think it's wrong to intentionally kill for food, in which case you have no right to lecture me on ethics, because both involve that. Door number 3. A double standard, it's okay for wheat but not for meat, this is you conceding that inconsistency exists in both our arguments. If you retreat to suffering, or a health based argument, that's still you choosing door number 2. Because you only after you acknowledge both are wrong, can you say "but, meat causes more suffering," or "but, meat is unhealthy. My logic follows perfectly your's does not, I cannot keep explaining this to you. At this point either you get it or you don't
2
-
+James D #1 not just bugs plenty of animals killed by pesticides, BTW you would have to accept that you could kill humans under the same circumstances. Which creates a double standard because you're not in favor of killing for meat, but you are in favor of killing for wheat. #2 You used compared sentience, if I used compared sentience to justify taking a pig's life you wouldn't accept that.
#3 You would also have to be ethically okay with eating whatever you kill with pesticides, to produce wheat, animals, otherwise you have a double standard, because you're saying it's ethically okay to kill animals to produce food on the wheat side, & not okay on the meatside.
#4 If you were in favor of eating whatever you killed for wheat production. You'd still have a double standard because you think killing & eating animals is wrong in meat production.
Put simply you can only go 3 routes if you're trying to argue rights. Everything we eat is ethical, in that case I win, or nothing we eat is ethical, again I win. Or sometimes it's okay to kill animals for food production (wheat) & sometimes it's not okay to kill animals for food production (meat). That's a double standard, & I still win.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The shoot them in the leg sounds reasonable to some but isn't if you look deeper. Pepper spraying the toe sounds reasonable to 0 people. So your analogy was trash just like your analysis.
You say my inner SJW comes out because I formed my own opinion based on the facts of the case? I didn't shift blame from Arbery, I pointed out how dumb it was for him to go for a gun when had he fled another direction or stopped he would've likely lived. I'm also not blind, when I see someone get in front of a guy on the road he could've followed, get out of the car which removes a barrier between him, (the person who could be a dangerous criminal) then run up to a guy coming tight around the truck, get close enough where the guy can grab the gun, that's a tactical error. Especially since according to the McMichael's their original intent was just to stop & talk to the guy they had seen previously on surveillance video inside the unfinished home. You can pretend that didn't happen but it's on video. On top of that he didn't take anything from the site any of the times, my guess is he was casing the place waiting for some valuables to be there another time, but nothing was taken this time. Chasing off a would be burglar is a win, nearly dying in an avoidable situation, having to kill someone, & then standing trial for it, isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The children didn't testify, the adult sister testified. They found Julius's white shirt with the black trim, the bandana & the gun in his room. Yes Julius is that dumb, for years he claimed that he never wore the bandana & they needed to test it for DNA. Julius threatened his GF from jail so she wouldn't testify to his whereabouts in a letter to her, she did testify not only to that, but that the gun was his. When Jones dropped off his personal car for a repair, prior to the murder, the police were called by the mechanic because he found bullets that match the caliber in Julius's gun & pantyhose tied together & his gloves, aka his carjacking kit, since he was a carjacker. A witness in the parking lot of the strip mall where Jones & Jordan spotted the night of the murder, described Jones, Jordan what they were wearing, & Jones's clothes matched the shooter, he saw the other guy had cornrows which would be Jordan. He also saw them getting into Jordan's car which he described accurately, after seeing the Suburban pass by, this was 10 mins before the murder. Julius Jones did this, he is that dumb, you have 0 point
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hope so, however I should acknowledge that the charters in Michigan (where Devos had influence pre-Trump) weren't run particularly well, they either do exactly as well as the public schools, slightly better or worse. Nothing compared to Kipp or Success Academy. They are always at the top of the NYC rankings, despite serving some of the lowest income kids. Education on a K-12 level actually isn't controlled by the Feds, it's a local issue only 11 cents out of every dollar spent on education comes from the Feds. What people don't realize is that the biggest item in every State's budget, is public education, so unionized teachers are among the most powerful lobbying groups on the state & local level. Most states, & municipalities hold school board elections on off years, which favors anyone with a preexisting organization. Furthermore there's also a ton of regulations on all levels, that make it nearly impossible for any single actor to create change. One of the founders of Success Academy actually graduated Harvard & immediately went into education, he then decided it would be easier to create a completely new system, than it would be to implement any significant change in the current one
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm not really an objective source, I have my opinions & biases, like in this case I tend to enjoy most Marvel movies. I also don't mind politics in a movie, even when I might disagree, (sometimes politics you agree with are more cringey on screen) but in general as long as it's woven into the story seamlessly. As long as a line, story-line, or character, isn't something that upon re-watch is goanna stick out & date the movie or show, I'd let it pass & if it's high quality except for those parts. For example I love X-men First Class. But when Mystique says "Mutant & proud" I cringe, when Beast makes a Don't ask don't tell reference, which due to Obama's repeal was dated by the time the movie came out, I cringe. But if it's limited to a few moments like in that movie, I can separate those awkward moments from the overall work, & confidently say First Class is one of my favorite super hero movies. As I said in the review I admired how Wakanda's politics felt like Wakanda's politics, not U.S. politics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Interesting, I have gotten you to move from animal rights, to reducing suffering. That's good, the question however, was pertaining to the trait found in animals that if found in humans would give you the authority to forgo that humans rights. Now that we have dismissed the rights claim, because it falls a part when you take into account animals dying in (non-meat) food production, I can address you on to the suffering. Now I have a debate scheduled for this Friday with OGMisen, so I would recommend watching that, because I will basically lay out the same case. I can address your argument on an individual level, But first, to be absolutely 100% clear. Your argument now rests on the idea that a vegan diet on the whole causes less suffering of animals than our standard meat included diet. By extension, any diet's ethical value should be judged by the suffering inflicted on animals. Less animal Suffering = more ethical, more animal suffering = less ethical (for the sake of argument, human suffering will neutral under both. That way you don't feel like I'm going to trick you,)
Do you agree on the animal suffering based ethical model as I laid it out?.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The reason I'm saving my response, is not because I own the argument or anything like that. It's both practical, & tactical. #1 The practical, I wanted to make this video quick, to announce the possibility of the debate. #2 the Tactical, Issac's argument boils down to this premise. There is an inherent contradiction in all meat eaters moral arguments, not present in his own. The question is an instrument of that premise. I may not have a large YouTube audience, but I know that the goal of a proper ethical counter, should not be to find the silver bullet answer, but it should be to demonstrate that Issac himself, & by extension, all "ethical vegans" hold the exact same double standard.
My next video on this subject matter will demonstrate that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
His numbers aren't accurate at all, they didn't count them in the 1901 census the estimated, based on the few people they saw multiplied by the number of square miles in the area, which assumes equal distribution of people over 265,000 square miles, if you think populations are just distributed equally over large land masses just cuz then there's no help for you, & they didn't even attempt to estimate the Kenyan population in 1930. I pulled the closest number I could find to match that claim from Wikipedia, then showed their source which has zero backing. So what are you even talking about? Also the top 10% or bottom 10% how ever you want to slice it is not a set group of people, usually "the bottom" is young people just entering the workforce & "the top" is people who are older who have built up experience & thus earn more. On top of that 2% of a much larger pie is way better than 10 or 20% of a much smaller pie. Would you rather live in Mauritius with a gdp per capita of $11,000, which is higher than China, is among the highest in Africa or the neighboring, Socialist paradise of Madagascar with more natural resources & a whole host of other natural advantages with a gdp per capita of $523. Do you hate the rich enough to prefer a more equal poverty?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+wesley sales thank you, this is a well thought out comment. DeRay isn't a TYT contributor , though, he's considered a thought leader in BLM like Shaun King, who is a TYT contributor. DeRay is the idiot who said that one of the characters in the most recent Planet of the Apes movie was designed to be like him. I agree with you on the Military weapons shouldn't be sold to law enforcement. And for the record my point was that this case doesn't have, or won't have the staying power. I'm very concerned about police brutality/police power. Aside from the race baiting etc. I think my number 1 criticism of BLM is that they pulled focus away from the issue of brutality, to specifically police killings of unarmed black people. There's only between 900-1000 people killed by a police officer in any given year. Most are white, but for arguments sake lets say 450 are black. About 90% of all people killed by police are armed (or appear armed) which includes guns, knifes, fake guns that look real or whatever. So now we're down to 45 cases of unarmed black people killed to discuss. Of those 45 some are definitely bad or unjust killings, Eric Garner, the guy shot in the back in SC. Some are in a grey area, Castille, who shouldn't have been shot, but it was a split second decision after the officer heard gun & misinterpreted getting the wallet for reaching. & some involve behavior that can be reasonably deemed threatening. My point is that these 45 are slim pickings, especially if you're trying to show a systemic problem. By comparison, we used to get a daily police brutality video, of different races, homeless people, the mentally ill, etc. But those more frequent situations, that are clear cut, on video, are sidelined because of the narrowing of the issue. I genuinely believed BLM was going to push the issue of police brutality over the top, because we had already started to bipartisan support for reform. But I judge a tree by its fruits, & that has not happened, BLM has decreased the chances of reform by misrepresenting cases to fit the narrowed focus they created.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I killed a pig for meat by gassing it instead of stabbing it, would you say the gassing is ethical & not the stabbing? No, then you're inconsistent. If I said we have to eat, so killing for meat is essentially a self defense measure would you accept that? No, then you're inconsistent. If I used level of sentience to justify killing for meat, would you accept that? No, then you're inconsistent. Not to mention your bug point falls apart, when you acknowledge that other pest animals killed, are sentient, you could kill bugs for meat, & animals like oysters have also have questionable sentience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See now you're being silly you've acknowledged that you can live off of, not just survive on animals. Now you want me to tell you that you can live off of 1 type of animal. Well you can look up the all bacon diet, it was done for 30 days to promote another goofy diet. That's just one portion of one animal. The World Health Organization estimates that you could survive off of 1 human leg for 39 days based on the human limb containing an average of 68,000 calories. If you wanna look the second one up fair warning it's in a section about how long you can live off of eating parts of yourself, not just eating another human. I guess your question depends entirely on how long you intend to survive. I'm not google, or a doctor, I can't even find out for sure how long you can live off of just wheat, because of all the gluten free shit that pops up when you search wheat. All I can find is sources that say it's possible if you eat the heart, liver, & other organs, plus you should eat it raw. So I'm going with yes it's possible if it were just one animal type. Not one animal lol, that would be a very short lived diet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Shanks No in survival we all agree, this is about non-survival situations, & whether it makes logical sense for animals to have the right to life whether or not it's consistent.
Think about it like this, a Massacre (a lot of people being killed) & a murder (one person being killed) are both intentional violations of the right to life, the only difference is scale. Let's say the meat industry (slaughterhouses) are the equivalent to massacres, & the wheat industry (poisoning animals with pesticides) takes the place of the murder. They would both be an animal rights violation. The only difference again is scale, aka amount of suffering. If you agree that in terms of rights, they are the same violation, then you agree with me, that the way to compare the meat industry, to the agriculture industry, is suffering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daan Kosmosdwergster I did answer this in the comments when OGmizen asked. If you have to choose between A. kill 10k or B. let the full 100k die if you're basing it on rights, assuming no volunteers, & no random selection. Then it would not be consistent with human rights for a majority to kill the minority in that situation. If you're basing it on suffering then choose A. that would be ethical. now the problem with equating this to veganism vs. eating meat, is if you decided you were incorporateoverpopulated species, and or invasive ones into your diet, based in the justification that they do more damage to the ecosystem, kill more animals/cause more suffering then the suffering that is caused by a soley plant based diet. Basically if I introduced a 8k option, you'd choose that instead of the 10k, or 100k option, by the standard of suffering you'd have to choose the lowest one. But you, yourself might not want to add invasive species/overpopulated species into your still mostly plant based diet. So instead of saying we have an ethical obligation to reduce suffering as much as possible. Your argument really becomes we should reduce suffering some, but not as much as possible.
By this metric (suffering) your diet is way more ethical than most meat eaters, but not the most ethical. That being said if you combined health with suffering, it would be very compelling, not perfectly consistent but compelling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ranting Monkey A blip doesn't obscure the overall trend, she took a hit when Philly Defranco covered the Roaming controversy and we saw with the daddyofive thing that going up against Philly D is not a good thing for your Channel. Trumpocalypse video is a blip, right after the election, a sad Feminist video that everyone made responses too.
Also you pretend that she's going to lose her sjw fanbase when in reality she is playing the middle. Contrary to popular belief she has not changed her position, she's just decided to talk to the other side. While vocal sjws like Steve Shives and Kat Blaque are upset with her, her overall audience has increased.
Again I'm not saying she's doing anything wrong, but to use your words I'm using logic, and like the most basic level of reasoning. Simplest answer is usually true. She had an incentive to pull this move, and everyone who's seemingly defending her virtue without question, also stands to gain from the exposure.
Like I said in my video I'm not one of these people whose against anybody making a buck. I think the conversations will be worth it, and the net gain for all will be a great thing. But it hardly qualifies as conspiratorial to say that people respond to financial incentives.
1
-
+Ranting Monkey First off thank you for taking the time. However, there are two flaws in your logic.
1. There isn't any money in youtube. Yes ads have diminished, but I still see earnings & I can project what an increase in watch time & views to her channel's scale would mean. Plus Super chat revenue is real, & since she will be hosting, according to her video, she would be raking in those $.
2. Skeptics, Anti-feminists, Anti-SJW's or whatever you want to call them have been begging for a debate between the two sides since forever. The demand has always been there, Laci has always been savy, as demonstrated in my video. It's just as likely that the Blaire debate was done as a part of her plan to position herself as the host of these future debates she is planning. In fact it's more likely, she had a reputation to repair, after MTV & going after Roaming millennial, & all the information I brought up was available & obvious prior to that debate.
Again I don't think it's a bad thing, but it's the obvious explanation. It's hard to ingore that, when preaching the values of skepticism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Air BNB's bring more toursists aka more restaurant dinners. So no. & competition is good, why should hotels be a cartel protected by the government? Now they can't rely on their protections & have to compete for consumers aka improve themselves. Lower cost of travel means more travelers, & since resources are allocated more efficiently the tourists have more money to spend since they're not being crippled with hotel bills. You're completely wrong about everything, & if you believe wealth creation is a myth, then how can the standard of living ever improve? How is it through most of human history everyone lived in crippling poverty? & not fake western poverty, with electricity, heat, running water, too much to eat that they're more likely to be obese, super computers in their pocket, & high def TV's. Actual poverty? Explain it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+christophermarang. They do Anti-white propaganda, they have plenty of white people, I did a video on Francis recently, who is white & he was spinning stories in that direction. Also TYT has always been diverse, from the beginning, founding members are Cenk, (Turkish) Steve Oh (Korean) Dave Koller, Ben Mankiewicz, (who are both of Jewish decent) there first two hires who are still on board were Jesus, & Jayar. (Hispanic & African American) Sure they have more white people now, but I don't buy for a second that they have a history of bias against minorities in hiring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+pc Juggalo I'm not to up on the case but it looked like a bad shooting. I'd need to know what she was charged with to understand where the jury was coming from. A lot of times they charge cops with murder which involves premeditation, instead of manslaughter, or involuntary homicide, or excessive force. The problem with doing that, is that they ensure a coviction won't occur due to the intent involved with murder.
As far as waiting to see a weapon, sometimes it's too late at that point. I'd like to see CIT training, which has been shown in Dallas to reduce police violence, because they're looking for mental issues, and because that involves separating erratic behavior from threatening, it really works a lot better than the diversity, implicit bias stuff activists peddle
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HayteStreet I'm not in denial, my friend, I'm sorry to tell you that this is really. Leftists invented the term "micro-aggression" which equates offense to violence, leftists demand "trigger warnings", & leftists demand intellectual "safe spaces" on campus. These are the terms they use, they weren't made up by conservatives. There are plenty of crybabies on the right as well, but facts are facts.
Furthermore, the point of flag burning is to get a reaction, just like burning any symbol of something bigger, ex religious books. People who react are playing into the person burning the items hand. The conservative overreaction, is really stupid. However, that doesn't change the fact that all these terms we're talking about were initially created and used by leftists, to shield people from things they disagree with.
1
-
Anyone doxing or sending death threats is a prick that should go to jail. Now that we got past that, the student got an attorney because the school attempted to discipline him for releasing the video. Also when people refer to the Totalitarian left, they are talking about the left's tendency to police opinions, speech etc. Finally I realize Cenk is trying to flip the whole "triggered" "safe space" thing on conservatives, but let's be honest, liberals are the ones yelling at professors for not policing Halloween costumes, literally having safe spaces with puppies, cookies, & coloring books when conservatives speak, & they are the ones shouting down speakers. It's a cute attempt a reframing the issue but, not remotely the reality
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amen Knowtech Nobody (relevant to this conversation) including me said that. Obviously being a slave is worse than living in Africa or Haiti or South America. What the guy in the video said was black people in America on average live better than those in Africa. They on average, live better than those in Haiti & South America, (where their ancestors were also brought as slaves.) This conversation is referring only to Black people in the year 2016. My point was they should've delved deeper into the guy's premise, because I do not accept the premise that the immortality of slavery is mitigated by saying that decedents of that system live comparably better on average than other black people around the world, & I'm curious about how the guy in the video would react to more probing questions. Again this conversation refers to current, present day, black people's standards of living. Which is typically measured by net worth, life expectancy, & any other common standards of well being. I did not in any way shape or form state or attempt to state that a person enslaved lives better than anyone not enslaved. If you'd like to respond, please do so without virtue signaling, or completely mistating my position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Iraq War was sold on WMD's & ties to Al Qaeda neither were true. There were a number of times, where post WW1 France & the UK could've put down Nazi Germany before they were ready to fight, instead because they were too war weary they tried appeasement. This led to the most destructive war in human history. During the Clinton admin the US had a shot at Bin Laden, who was responsible for the bombing of an embassy & the USS Cole. It wasn't taken, that cost the US 3,000 lives on 911 & 20 years in Afghanistan. Finally the point was that having a check on foreign power could prevent a full scale war, bases in Japan, Korea, Germany etc. So your counter of this was a full scale war in Iraq, that didn't prevent a full scale war in Iraq is profoundly worthless, & it's a bit unbelievable you'd even type something so ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 things 1. Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground, he never had a Stand your ground hearing, so let's just knock that out of the way. 2. The way Zimmerman's defense team framed it, was that Zimmerman had his gun on his person, he confronted Trayvon, Trayvon attacked, Zimmerman used the gun in self defense. Alexander admits that she went to her car after the confrontation started, grabbed her gun then returned, & fired the warning shot. It is 100% fine if you don't believe Zimmerman's account, it is unknowable if he is telling the truth, & Trayvon obviously cannot tell his side, so I understand your skepticism. I hope this explanation helps you to understand the legal distinctions between the 2 cases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In March of this year Sargon of Akkad, Christina Hoff Summers, & Jordan Peterson, each had their event shut down by leftists, in the same weekend. 3 separate events, at 3 separate universities. You're denying a problem that clearly exists, asking me for statistical eveidence. Like there's a data set of speeches given, speeches protested, speeches shutdown. & speeches shutdown with violence. It's ridiculous, the point I was making is that Cenk was minimizing violence claiming they're just protests, then equivocating the minimized description of what happens to the cakes thing. You keep saying I cut the clip deceptively to say Cenk is directly calling for violence, when my point was that he minimizes it, & he almost never covers it. Even when he does ex. Milo Yiannopoulos Berkeley riot. He invents conspiracy theories to blame conservatives. I never once said Cenk calls openly for violence, he always says don't be violent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They dug up a case that was not comparable from a year prior to the story, to distract from it, then admitted to doing it on air. I point out that the BLM kidnapping case is inaccurately named, as they weren't members of BLM, & there premise was nonsensical since the sentences weren't particularly harsh. The first girl convicted who was a legal adult at the time got 200 hours of community service & probation. For kidnapping a mentally ill kid, torturing him & live streaming it with a racial motivation. They cut into his scalp, & the very next day TYT digs up a locker room hazing incident from a year prior (which was also bad) & tries to imply that it was a comprable case, & that it was a sexual assault, & claimed that what they viewed as light sentences would be much harsher if they were black. There's nothing hypocritical about me pointing out the facts of both cases, & using what they admitted do on air, to judge another nonsense story
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow so I just rewatched the clip because I uploaded this video months ago, & your point is so irrelevant its amazing. I played the part of the clip where Cenk said it was a violation of the law. So the idea that I was concealing that fact (which is completely irrelevant to the video) is just nonsense. Again I didn't lie, at all, pathetic attempt to prove so on your part.
As for the Federal law point, I messed up. It's in Federal Court. Nobody is arguing for special rights, it's the right to refuse service. In this case it's based on religious reasons. Nothing in the Constitution compels private actors to do so. & the case is testing precedent from the Civil rights act related cases. All I said in my video is that some guy not wanting to provide a service is not equivelant to a state actor censoring speech. Also don't pretend to be some kind of a hero, you can't contest an actual point in my video, so you drummed up some allegations about me ommiting some relelevant information, when clearly I left the part in where Cenk said it's against the law.
I get this crap all the time. I can't run his whole video due to time/copyright reasons, so I edit clips without changing the overall point. If you're going to claim I took something out of context, you actually have to demonstrate where I altered what he was saying. The point of my clip was that he was bringing up unrelated issues (problem B) & conflating them with a clear cut Constitutional issue. His examples (The NFL, & gay cakes) involved private businesses, not a government funded or run organization censoring speech. Those are not equivalant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Lyssa Tomlin I was featured on his channel months ago, when we crossed paths, it was are only collaboration. I did a stream then a stream recently, & we talk on twitter on occasion. Believe me if it were that easy to grow I'd ask to do another collaboration. But look at my most popular videos. Top 3 by a mile are TYT, so 3 out of the 4 TYT responses that I made, hit it big (for me) & based on the way the 3 spiked up months later the 4th will in time be right up there. I've been through my analytics, most of my growth came from, still comes from those videos. If I wanted to just do what my audience wanted I'd do way more TYT stuff, but I wait for one of there videos to be really bad so I don't get repetitive. Also Battening is plus at least 6k subs since his No BS video, so the subscribers, friends, & all that, is on the other side. I just saw some problems in his video & I responed. I made a second response, to his, & now I'm done with the topic.
Thank you for congratulating me, I appreciate the support you've given me for so long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A cheap asphalt roof last 15-25 sure, however I was checking for Houston since we were talking about Houston, & assuming no maintenance, which is the premise they gave I went with the shorter end. An HVAC can last longer, but warranties don't extend typically past 10 years & in warm weather locations, like ummm HOUSTON, where it's running nearly all year it's on the lower end of the spectrum. A quick search says replacement can happen as early as 5 years. Now, if you were making the claim that there would be NO maintenence unless you sued the company or did it yourself, remember Saagar said they wouldn't even fix a sink then it would be on the shorter end.
Finally I literally said these were very basic numbers, no interest, no landscaping, no maintenance priced in & 100% occupancy. If anything I was too generous saying everything would only add 2 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Thaddeus Walker I wasn't trying to put the phrase in your mouth, merely stating the fact that Issac was presenting an argument about consistency that supports a notion of animal rights. I wasn't trying to corner you just state clearly, the fact that underpinning of was argument is rights based. & that after a rights based argument fails, he shifts to suffering based. Now that we agree on the logical structure, the onus is back on me to counter the suffering point effectively.
Now the fact that you're passionate about how you feel about this & have health justifications is perfectly fine. I never intended to dispute them. You feel the way you feel, & I'm no expert on the health aspect. However I responded to an ethical challenge. Feelings aren't ethics, & health isn't ethical. My position isn't that veganism is wrong, nor do I say veganism is unhealthy, or even that it is less healthy than a meat eating diet. I'm perfectly fine with conceding that a vegan diet is both on average healthier, & when balanced properly, healthier than a diet meat eaters consider balanced. I could explain why health doesn't equal ethics, in a super quick way but since you never made that claim, I won't bother.
My only goal in engaging in this debate is to advocate for sound ethical reasoning. I don't want to convert any vegans to meat eaters, I only wish to dispute the consistency of this line of reasoning.
Thank you for all your feedback, I can see that you're passionate about this, but I appreciate the fact that you kept coming back with an open enough mind, to eventually see my position.
1
-
Well you did not refute it in a way that's internally consistent. You said, (paraphrasing)feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that the deaths involved in meat eating are unnecessary, due to the fact that humans don't need meat to survive. I responded, by giving this example: the deaths involved in wheat agriculture are unnecessary because humans do not need wheat to survive. My logic follows perfectly, in the exact same way Issac's does when someone brings up any trait. For example intelligence. This is exactly Issac's counter, if it's okay to kill a pig for food because of it's lack of intelligence, than it follows that it's okay to kill a human that has the intelligence of a pig. The meat eater says yes to the first, & no to the second, & thus a double standard is formed. Right now by saying no to the deaths involved in meat consumption but yes to the deaths involved in wheat consumption you have created a double standard, thus despite your disagreement with meat eaters you are logically aligned with them. By contrast despite my disagreement with Issac, we are both using the same logic, thus Issac & I are aligned in terms of argumentation.
Now you say you're throwing passion, and not making arguments, yet you continue to make faulty arguments.
Finally, you claimed I was using the false dichotomy fallacy which is not true. I only took the debate to it's most rational & fair conclusion. If animal rights is the issue, then I demonstrated that animal rights are violated in both scenarios. So if you still have an ethical issue, after I demonstrated that, then your issue must be because of something else. The deaths in caused in the production of meat as opposed to wheat (wheat is just an example) are the same in terms of a right to life based argument. However, if you take scale into account, the number of deaths in the meat industry far out number the animal deaths in agriculture. So when I say the argument from ethical vegans is now a suffering based one, I don't say that as a trick, in order to pigeon hole you. I say it because it's the only rational conclusion. So what Issac & any other ethical vegan would say at this point is, a meat based diet objectively causes more suffering than a plant based diet, therefore veganism is ethically superior to meat eating. That's all I am saying when I state that an ethical vegan argues more suffering = less moral, & less suffering = more moral. Now can you, or can you not see that my reasoning is sound, if you can't then watch the Issac, & Vegan Gains debates, I'm not making this up, they truly do argue this point.
1
-
1
-
Issac's question has two aims, to prove a logical inconsistency, & to lay the case for animal rights. He claims that is illogical to kill animals in situations where you wouldn't kill a human. He asks you to name the trait that would make this work logically. This is a rights argument. Killing someone not in self defense is murder, & this is wrong because murder is a violation of a person's right to life. You're saying this is true, but if your need to survive is present, "necessity" then you can kill an animal. That's not logically consistent, with a rights argument, unless you think it makes sense for someone who needs a transplant, to kill someone else for their organs. Because "needs" do not outweigh rights. However, in a similar situation, you'd say the needs of the human outweigh the rights of the animal. Now the onus is on you to explain the difference, that if true of humans would permit the killing of them to harvest their organs.
Now when you talk about things that are "unnecessary" vs "necessary" you are now into another subjective illogical argument. You say just because you can kill an animal for food doesn't make it necessary, & your justification is that we as humans don't need meat in our diets. The reason this doesn't follow is because I could argue that when you kill animals in wheat production, that too is "unnecessary" because gluten free people prove that you don't need wheat in your diet to survive. So again, your logic does not follow. Now for the millionth time, your last ethical argument is the "reduces suffering" argument. Because now that rights have been eliminated as logically inconsistent, & necessary vs unnecessary have also been eliminated as inconsistent. You are now making the case that because the meat eating diet causes more suffering than the plant eating diet, the vegan diet is morally superior. This is the only ethical case you have left my friend. I'd love to address it, as soon as you accept that this is your moral argument.
Also the reason I put "overpopulation" in quotes is due to the history behind human related, overpopulation claims. They've all been wrong every single time, so when you use a myth as reasoning, it's going to be put in quotes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Thaddeus Walker I never claimed necessity was a standard, because it's ridiculous. I did say killing an animal for food, would be meeting a greater need than mowing a lawn.
The reason necessity doesn't fly is 2 fold, 1 if you're arguing about rights necessity doesn't trump rights, I need food, but if I take a gun & walk into a supermarket, & murder everyone present, it's just as much of a crime, if I did so for money & that excluses the fact that money also could fall under "necessity." Furthermore I could make the argument as I did with the lawn, that if you don't need it to survive, than it's not a necessity, this is also true of developing particular farmland, you don't "need" any specific crop, nor do you "need" any specific piece of land for agriculture, so converting land falls out of the necessity category.
You believe, it's okay to massacre a bunch of people who don't respect property rights if they're "over populated." Neither of these follow, but just to be clear that would theoretically give me the ability to massacre any "collective" or group of communists, as long as it fufills my "need" for food.
Furthermore, it would also be acceptable to kill any animal for food, because no animals comprehend private property, & I could. Or an objective body, could deem their presence to be too great (over populated) So if according to you the right to live is based on the practice of respecting property rights then no animal has the right to live. If rights are based on overpopulation, or more accurately perceived overpopulation in a certain area, then you're point about rights doesn't hold at all unless you accept the premise that it's okay to Massacre people in India or China based on your feelings about overpopulation. Because if you look at the history of overpopulation theory, it is consistently proven to be a myth for humans, due to adaptability. So whether it's one, or both, in tandem your arguments not applicable to killing humans but is applicable to kill any animal. Finally the reason your necessity argument doesn't follow is because your necessity argument is not a rights argument. The necessity argument is an argument for reducing suffering. As I've shown in my example it would not be okay for me to murder human just because I needed something that human had. And if you feel like the convenience store example doesn't really work, then let's say I needed a transplant of a heart or some other organ. If I follow your reasoning that necessity somehow overrides the right to life, then it I would be morally justified in killing somebody for their organs as long as I needed it.
Furthermore if the trait that makes it okay to kill humans for violating your rights (in this case property rights) is their capacity to respect them. I would agree, if the same was true of animals it would be okay to kill them. But it's not true of animals, so by your logic & the logic of the structure, it is not okay to kill animals who eat your crops. Much in the same way people who are mentally deficient to the point where they can't understand right & wrong, aren't killed/punished for their crimes. If you have to have a rational thinking brain to have your rights violated, then you still have no rights based reason for killing animals that endanger your crops.
Again you're making a suffering argument not a rights one. I'll address the suffering point, as long as you acknowledge that the one that you're making.
1
-
Thaddeus Walker I didn't talk about necessity, & if you're not making an ethical argument then we now have moved on to a different subject, that I never brought up.
Next you did not refute my point by stating your car accident example or your war example. You have to compare like with like. If you recklessly kill a human in a car accident, that's considered involuntary manslaughter. But you're perfectly fine with farmers recklessly or intentionally killing animals to grow crops. Secondly your war point doesn't wash either, sure you can kill invading humans who threaten your life, that's self defense, & by extension you can kill animals that are an imminent threat to your life because that's also self-defense. The standard is solid there. However if tomorrow, someone decided that they were going to repurpose land for agriculture, but in order to do so they'd have to massacre a tribe, that currently lives off that land, that would be wrong. Conversely killing the animals, destroying their habitats, then continuously gassing returning animals to protect those crops, would be considered an appropriate cost. This does not follow if you take up the position of animal rights. Now that I have currently laid out the premise appropriately, the onus is on you to name the trait present in those animals that if true of humans would make it ok for you to gas them? You cannot justify this while maintaining the position that animals have rights, mainly the right to live. Now if we are having an ethical argument, and you were arguing in good faith, based on reason. Your only choice when confronted with this inherent inconsistency in a vegan's animal rights argument, would be to pivot from rights to reducing suffering. Now if you don't want to have an ethical argument, that's cool, by the challenge video is based on ethics, & I'm going to debate somebody based on ethics.
1
-
Thaddeus Walker You can say you are doing it for selfish reasons, but that's what a meat eater would say, & it's not an ethical argument.
A health argument is also not an ethical argument, people can choose to do a number of unhealthy things, aside from eating meat, that you probably wouldn't have an objection to. The question posed brings up two notions, one is that of consistency, the other is one about whether rights typically reserved for humans, logically should extend to animals. Now after I pointed out that not even you consistently hold to the notion that animals have rights believe that animals have rights, you pivoted to suffering as your standarf of ethical reasoning.
Now all I'm trying to do, is get an accurate measure for your ethical arguments as they pretain to suffering. do you believe that more animal suffering = less ethical while less animal suffering = more ethical?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+imskinne the government spends too much money on education, & infrastructure isn't going to jumpstart the economy. I'm amused by your limited thinking, yes rich people want to get richer, that's a good thing. In a Capitalist economy you get rich by providing goods & services to people. Most people aren't rich, so to become an effective Capitalist you need to improve their lives. Bill Gates, & Steve Jobs became billionaires, not because the kicked poor people in the teeth until money fell out. They produced ever improving products, at a price most Americans can afford. These products expanded economic opportunities for everyone. I wouldn't be able to do videos without them. The rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor, if that were true world poverty would be increasing, but it's falling at a record pace. People need to stop crying about people who have more, & realize things have never been better
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Robert Kotsopoulos dude maybe you don't get YouTube, but a low percentage of people rated it. Most people don't bother, either way. The fact that you keep bringing it up as your gotcha is hilarious. I've seen Cenk's nephew's videos. They're terrible. Last week he cried about the NYT doing a profile on a racist, & then lied about Mike Brown again. The DOJ released an 88 page report years ago explaining how most of the witnesses, (except the ones that were Brown's friends) & all of the forensic evidence supported Wilson's account of events. He's still lying about it dude. You don't know what you're talking about, because you live in a leftist bubble, & you think his basic bitch teleprompter reading dumbed down FB content is good. I can respect the actual TYT show for at leas at attempting to delve into topics in depth, but his shit is made for dumb people to hit share on Facebook, (like most FB content) it doesn't have any of the analysis or nuance that can be found on Youtube. He's basically the a less talented liberal, Tomi Lahren, who only has his job because his uncle owns the company, & it shows with his terrible debate performance.
Attack me all you want, but I've built my platform from nothing, & it's growing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The president lost the election, & will be out by January. This is always the stupid game lefties play, Trump said a mean thing so the left's actions are cool. Like with the press, Orange man bad for calling the media names, but Obama spying on them cool, because he was friendly.
Obstructionism isn't a thing, you have a bicameral legislative body with different election schedules because the constitution is designed with the idea that delay is preferable to error. Your argument boils down to, there's an opposition party, & they oppose us, therefore a forceful takeover is good. You're an authoritarian, just admit it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1