Youtube comments of (@snowcat9308).
-
12000
-
6000
-
5700
-
775
-
580
-
285
-
199
-
118
-
98
-
93
-
82
-
81
-
78
-
76
-
76
-
64
-
64
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
48
-
42
-
40
-
36
-
36
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Batuhan Sündal
Dude, nobody wants to pay taxes. But it's our duty. And if you are sitting on a fortune that will most likely sit there and collect dust, you are obligated to pay higher taxes so that people like my mother and father can have some financial relief. If one billionaire pays $500,000,000 a month in taxes, that's the equivalent of 1,000,000 people paying $500 a month in taxes. And believe me, when you are sitting below the poverty line and getting only about $15,000 a year, that extra $500 is a LOT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
@BombAtomically_95 There are few things fundamentally wrong with this worldview (one that I, myself, had to deconstruct within the past few years).
Firstly, there is not a "big company" on the face of planet earth that is "lefty". First and foremost, companies are profit-oriented. Market regulation is something all leftists want, and big companies know that will cut into their profits.
Secondly, companies are not trying to be anti-white (which is not language that you used, but it is what you implied with your comment--whether you realize it or not). They do their best to appeal to liberal/progressive politics because that is the status quo, so it's a safe option for them (guaranteeing they make the most amount of profit possible).
In cases like Battlefield V or Disney Star Wars, companies will use progressive politics as a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are pumping out sub-par sludge. This is about as far away from sincerity as one can get.
Now, conservative media outlets will pick up on this and try to frame it as some grand conspiracy by corporations to make everyone progressive. This definitely isn't the case, but it certainly serves corporate interests when the right is using their 'mistakes' to weaponize people against leftist ideas. It's almost like corporations are trying to associate progressivism with negative experiences.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@papalittle3691 The best cold weather fighters in the world are the Norwegians, Finns, and Swedes. Believe it or not, most Russians don't live in Siberia. Also, they literally did suffer in the winter. Their soldiers had rusty guns, their tanks got stuck, and clean socks were among the many supplies not being delivered to the front. The difference now isn't so much that Russia has improved, but moreso that Ukraine hasn't kept up with them. Not because it's Ukraine's fault, mind you, but because the Western news cycle has all but abandoned them, and so it's easier for politicians to ease off of sending aid (which needs to be sent btw).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hankhill3446 I disagree. If the only complaint is that it's "inappropriate", so what? You get naked around dudes all the time? Can you not control yourself around your naked female colleagues? (I'm using a general "you" here, obviously. Not trying to accuse you of being ravenously horny lol)
If by "woke events", you're referring to celebrations of Pride, I completely disagree with you. I understand you believe that it's a sin (or something to that tune, since you mentioned your religious beliefs), but Pride is actually pretty important. I used to think it was kind of redundant, given that most people seem(ed) to be cool with gay/trans people. However, I've come to realize how important Pride is to people who don't have the support of their friends and/or family. And, especially in a profession that typically attracts more conservative people (like, I dunno, the military), there's a lot of value in making gay people feel welcomed when they otherwise might not be.
Can you please elaborate upon what you mean by "these policies", and explain to me why you feel diversity training is a bad thing?
And finally, to answer your question:
The purpose of a military is to defend the country that owns it, and to project the power and interests of that country onto other countries. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. And, I might add, a military does this much better when its members feel valued and like part of the team.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jim6186 Unprotected sex, in general, can spread STIs. Gay people often have sex unprotected because there's no risk of accidentally making a child. Of course, you should never have unprotected sex unless you really trust the person, no matter who your partner is or what's between their legs. That's not a gay problem.
Just because sex is intended for reproduction, doesn't mean that it isn't or shouldn't be done as an expression of intimacy and love between two people. It's perfectly natural to have non-reproductive sex, and no one is asking for everyone else to start being gay. So, that's not a gay problem.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the school thing, because I've never heard anything beyond a cold, detached, and anitomical tone is used to describe reproduction and sexual health--Which, by the way, is only taught to highschoolers. And Sex Ed is how we properly teach kids to ALWAYS use protrection, so we can midigate the spread of STIs discussed in your first point.
I do agree with you that SOME people act in unbecoming ways during Pride Parades. That's in public, there are kids around, and no one wants to see that. However, that is a problem with INDIVIDUALS within the gay community, not a problem because they are gay, nor is it representative of gay people as a whole. Some people are just maniacs.
Yes, generally gay people have a very libertarian "do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt," way of operating. That is, of course, because that very ideology is what allows us to live our lives in peace and without judgement or persecution from others. I fail to see how "live and let live" is a bad way of living, especially when my romantic and sexual life has absolutely zero effect on your or anyone else's well-being.
I don't even want to touch your comment about trans people, mostly because I'm not trans and I can't properly, personally convey how wrong what you just said was. I would, however, love to see an example of schools "grooming" children into undergoing gender transitioning. And, gee, I can't imagine why one of the most marginalized groups in the West would be so prone to committing suicide. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with sometimes being rejected by their family and friends, being ridiculed constantly by strangers who describe their experience as "chopping off their ding-dong", or otherwise make their mental state feel illegetimate.
Hate to burst your bubble, but being gay is very normal. It's been observed in many animal species besides humans, the most notable of which is the giraffe, mentioned previously.
Your opinion is obviously not "educated" because you clearly don't understand the legal and social persecution LGBT people suffer all over the world. When we are forced from our homes or thrown from the tops of buildings, we feel pretty compelled to come together and defend ourselves in numbers. It's hard to quietly remain in our bedrooms when we face social ostricism for something as braindead simple as loving another of the same sex. THAT isn't cool and we won't chill out until you do. Gay people are going to be a part of OUR culture because we EXIST. If you can't get over that, that's a you problem.
For three paragraphs you just sit there flatly asserting nonsense about the "Sexual Revolution!!!" and cultural degradation, but I only see the proliferation of libertarianism and liberal thought. We live in an age where our society is more tolerant of racial, sexual, or sexuality differences than it has ever been. I fail to see how improving the wellness and confidence of your peers by not bothering them about the most inconsequential things is going to lead to the destruction of our society.
And so we come to the pedophilia stuff. You are woefully misinformed, mister "educated opinion", if you think for a moment that anyone in the LGBT community (who isn't a pedophile themselves) thinks for a moment that we should be associated with pedophiles. The largest anti-gay propaganda tool in the past has been to accuse gay people of liking children. It disgusts me that you are so deeply lost that you would read some article from NewsMax and genuinely believe that actual maniacs on Twitter calling themselves "MAPs" would be even vaguely representative of where the LGBT community stands, or where it's going.
Remember when I said "Do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt."? Yeah, PEDOPHILIA HURTS CHILDREN. We know this. You know this. Most people know this! And as long as everyone knows this, MAPs will NEVER be accepted by the LGBT community or society more broadly.
And don't give me the "with love" bullshit. You lost my respect when you doubled down on the pedophilia comparison. Take your meds and stop watching Fox News, old man.
~✨With contempt✨
SnowCat
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
-
@richardfroste4548 Y'know "Richard Froste", your profile is awfully baren for a guy who has been on this platform for almost 10 years. Very bot-like of you, comrade.
You see, comrade, it's about 3:30 in the afternoon for me, an American living on the East Coast. You posted this comment about seven hours ago, which would be about 8am. However, 8am EST is actually the middle of the day in Moscow! 3pm, in fact!
Now, you could just be an early bird, but I somehow find it hard to believe that you were posting misinformation in Ryan's comments at 8am on a Wednesday. No, it's more likely that you also posted this comment at 3:30pm... in Moscow.
I look forward to your reply tomorrow at 8 am, tovarisch! Slava Rossyia!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glenfoxh Okay one, stop pretending like you have a deeper understanding of the English language than you actually do. The pseudo-intellectual crap makes you look like an asshole.
Two, substantiate your anecdote. Trans people are silencing de-transitioners? Who? Where? Why? Don't get me wrong, medically transitioning is a huge, costly, and hard-to-reverse life choice that someone can make. I do believe that the weight of their choice should be communicated to them so that they are properly informed on what they're about to do.
However, the "concern" coming from the right strikes me as performative and post-hoc; an attempt to obscure their true (transphobic) beliefs, especially when (according to the "The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972-2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets", Google it and read) only 0.3% to 0.6% of people express regretting their transition. For comparison, between 5% and 14% of parents regret having their children.
And of course you begin having a conniption about diversity and inclusion.. for some reason? I wasn't talking about that at all, dude. This is a conversation about the percentage of trans people who regret transitioning. I'm not the woke Twitter branch of a Fortune 500 company, nor am I a liberal games' journalist.
I know it may shock you, but there are actually real people out there who really care about the rights of trans people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cute! But no. HIMARS uses GPS to guide its missiles in. That's why they need to triangulate the position on a map (or, get this, a GPS), so that they can mark the target for the missile to hit. That's how precision guidance works, and it's been a part of US doctrine for decades.
That's weird though, because I don't see the FPV drone being jammed. I see it following Russian artillery to an ammo depot and then calling in an artillery strike. Seems like pretty skillful coordination on the Ukrainians' part.
The war has gone from territorial to attritional. Ukraine alone does not have the stocks to stand up to a regional power like Russia, but neither does any other single European country. That's why they banded together with us to create NATO. 77 Billion dollars is less than ONE PERCENT of the TOTAL US Government Budget in ONE YEAR (the war has been going on for almost two), and HALF of Russia's tanks have been destroyed, their economy is doing poorly (though it could be doing worse: thanks greedy corporations who don't care about anything except short term profits :3), and they've already experienced their first coup attempt.
So uh, honk honk tovarisch 🤡🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey doofus, war moves slower than your Tik Tok fyp. Russia is losing ground in Ukraine, and just failed spectacularly in Avdiivka, resulting in the loss of THREE BATTALIONS (a whole brigade :3) of Russian mechanized infantry.
The latest totals for Russian soldiers killed appears to be around 120,000 circa 18th Aug 2023! That's a whole lot more than your "90,000 dead ukrainians!" figure, which itself is a lot higher than the US estimate.
Russia has lost almost 2500 tanks, more than 1000 AFVs, almost 3000 IFVs, and scores more trucks and logistically important vehicles. Wait no, sorry, those are just the ones that have been visually confirmed as being destroyed by video or picture (found on the ever-venerable Oryx)! They've almost assuredly lost hundreds (if not thousands) more.
Wait which side is losing? The alleged world power, or a bunch of farmers with western tech from the early 2000s?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Neckhawker How is the modern definition of "Gender" circular? From Webster Dictionary:
"The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex."
In fairness, it does list the colloquial meaning of "gender", which is a synonym for "sex". Both meanings are equally valid in different contexts, and we have words that do this all the time.
For example, "Theory". In academia, "Theory" means a way of understanding or thinking about something (Germ "Theory", the "Theory" of Plate Tectonics, etc). Whereas colloquially, "Theory" means a guess or an estimate ('I have a theory about blah blah blah').
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrispredsfan I find your anecdote exceptionally hard to believe. Even if it's true, she isn't a cat. Humans are born as humans. Cats are born as cats. There is no biological or scientific precedent for justifying "trans-species" identification. Let's not let that obscure (and possibly plagiarised) anecdote distract us from addressing your internalised homophobia, though.
I'm not being hateful towards you--and certainly not because you "said a preacher or a person can believe what they want". I am trying to make you understand that you are homophobic, even if you don't outwardly condemn homosexual people. You harbor a belief (or at least agree with the belief) that gay people deserve to suffer eternally because of who they love. That is 'hate', so-called.
I do find it exceptionally interesting to hear an argument for subjective morality coming from a fundamentalist who swears by the Bible's infallibility, though. Yes, a person can believe whatever they like! I can, for example, believe that white people are physically and mentally superior to black people based on our biology. That doesn't make it true, nor does that make it morally acceptable by our society's standards. Would it be fair for me to call someone "hateful" if they were to admonish me for my "race realism"? Or am I being the hateful one by being racist? Just because morals are subjective, doesn't mean that you can go around treating people however you please.
You can't just whine and cry "waaah you're being so hateful to me!!!" when someone calls you out for being homophobic. Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Methyl If we are to prove something, then we need to look at it from an outside perspective. If we approach the question of God's existence with the presumption that he is already real, then we aren't going to be fair to ourselves with our research. By responding to my question "How do you know that the universe was created?" with "Duh... everything we know has been created," proves to me that you aren't interested entertaining the point through any other worldview than "God is real!". That is, quite literally, the same as saying, "How do I know the universe was created? Duh! It was created!"
And no, not everything we know was created. The Earth, for example, was not "created". It formed as a result of gasses (and later meteors, planetoids, and other space rocks) coalescing into a very hot piece of rock nearly 4.5 billion years ago. Ask any geologist or physicist astronomer--who as dedicated their lives to studying these things--and they will agree. Of course, we can trace all matter (because it cannot be created or destroyed) back to the Big Bang, before our models break down and we can't accurately predict what happened prior to it.
And no (part 2), science hasn't "confirmed and affirmed" that the universe had a beginning. To our understanding, we cannot comprehend the universe prior to the Big Bang because our concept of "time" isn't applicable and our scientific models break down and don't make sense. That doesn't mean that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, nor does it mean that God is real.
All of this information has been determined through using the scientific method, which uses repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable tests and hypotheses to determine things about the universe to the best of our ability. This method has brought our technology and understanding of the universe to where it is today; much, much further than where it was thousands of years ago when the Abrahamic religions began.
I suppose I was being a little catty (get it? catty?) when I directly asserted that God isn't real. There is no way to know for certain, because God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That said, I have yet to see enough evidence that suggests that he is, so I continue to live my life like he isn't. As in, not hating myself for loving other men, which was what this comment was about in the first place, in case you forgot the hateful subject matter of the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evolution didn't stop. Species are currently evolving as we speak, but the process is very slow--especially for complex species with generations that take decades.
If only there was some kind of creature that had a new generation every few hours; like a bacteria or something. Yeah! Then we could expose those bacteria to antibiotics (selection pressure) for a day, and see which ones are resistant to it (and which ones don't survive). Then, at the end of the day, we could take some of the surviving bacteria, and freeze them for later analysis. Then, we could rinse and repeat with our bacteria, freezing a small portion of those bacteria every day, so that we had a start-to-finish record of genetic changes that happened to those bacteria.
Man.. if we had started this on.. oh I dunno.. February 24th, 1988, it would have been running for 36 years, 5 months, and 29 days (as of this comment)! I would probably call it the Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), but I'm sure they would have thought of a better name. Oh well! I guess we'll never know if speciation actually happens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hades-Art-t5f Lets focus on your definition of evil: defiance of the Ten Commandments. I'll be abridging them here since the language varies depending on the version of God's inerrant word you are interpreting.
1.) Do not worship false idols (gods).
We're off to a really bad start. Having differences in religious belief is not evil. In fact, I would be willing to say that demonizing other people because they believe differently to you has lead to some of the most "evil" acts that could be described.
2.) Do not take God's name in vain.
While I think it's fair enough for a religion to ask its followers to not vainly refer to the all-powerful deity they worship, I wouldn't exactly call it "evil".
3.) Keep the Sabbath holy.
I think it's quite healthy to have your society dedicate a day to community and relaxation, but I wouldn't call it "evil" if people wanted (or had) to work on that day (as long as they got other days off instead).
4.) Honor your mother and father.
Again, this is a good message to send, but not all parents are faultless saints. If you have terrible parents, you are not "evil" because you refuse to honor or respect them.
5.) Do not kill (murder?).
This one is very confusing for many reasons. Killing people can absolutely be justified, mostly through self-defense, but in other ways too. For example, in 1 Samuel 15, God asks Samuel and Saul to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
6.) Do not commit adultery.
While I am a moral relativist, I would agree (as would most) that cheating on your partner, married or not, is pretty messed up. I don't need to believe in objective good and evil to see how that might make another person feel awful.
7.) Do not steal.
Again, another one that is good in principle, but I wouldn't describe shoplifting a pencil from Staples as "evil". Arguably, I'd say that screwing the mega-corps that have been corrupting our government and destroying the American Dream is about as close to objective moral good one could get, honestly.
8.) Do not lie.
Lying typically leads to more harm than good, so it is fair to say that doing that is usually bad. However, there are different degrees to which you can lie, and lying about what you ate for breakfast doesn't exactly have the same consequences as lying about the structural integrity of the nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl power plant.
9.) Do not covet your neighbor's wife.
Again, while I can see the negative consequences of desiring someone who is already in a relationship, I wouldn't describe it as "evil" per se.
10.) Do not covet your neighbor's possessions.
Interpreted to mean "the possessions belonging specifically to your neighbor", I can understand the "evil" that would come about as a result of that desire to have the things that aren't yours. However, interpreted to mean "possessions that other people generally have but you don't", I actually completely disagree with this.
As an American, a core part of our culture is the "American Dream" which is about desiring a better life, and turning that desire into a reality through hard, passionate work. The idea that 'life can be better' is such an integral part of what it means to be an American. I flatly disagree with the idea that defying this Commandment, under the latter interpretation I gave, can be described as evil.
Most importantly, however, none of this addresses the FEAR of God. And no, "historical meaning" is completely irrelevant here, as translations and interpretations of the Bible from all points in history (especially recently) stress the idea of "fear"ing God. If your god is all-knowing, then clearly he meant to use the English word "fear" to describe the emotion of fear to the English-speaking readers of his word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sheldoniusRex
1.) Rhetorical questions are just that: Rhetoric. Rhetoric is defined as "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content."
Raichik did not ask the question sincerely or meaningfully. By asking that rhetorical question, juxtaposed to a male mariner doing a feminine dance, she implied that "No, this video does NOT show strength or confidence in our military." If you cannot understand subtext, then there's nowhere this conversation can go.
2.) Boo hoo. Cry me a river. It doesn't matter what this sailor does in his free time (especially in the privacy of a bedroom). The most important thing to the United States military (or any military worth its own weight in salt) is this: Can it kill? If yes, good! If no, seek employment elsewhere.
I'd be very interested to hear you qualify what you believe is "degeneracy", or hear you explain who you think the "managers in Washington" are. Extra credit if you can do the former without referring to the Bible, and the latter without referring to (((THE JEWS))).
Bonus point.) Why do you care what our enemies think? I, for one, invite them--at their earliest convenience--to test their hypothesis and prove to the world just how "weak" the greatest military power on Earth really is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The Union (Lincoln) was apprehensive about making the war about slavery, because plenty of white people in the north really didn't care about it all that much. In the beginning, the conflict was (to the Union) about reunifying the states. The Confederacy, however, had explicitly different ideas:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." - Literally the second paragraph in Mississippi's declaration of secession.
"[The Union] demand[s] the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. - from Texas's declaration of secession.
"[...][The Republican Party] entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. [...] We refuse to submit to that judgment [...]" - from Georgia's declaration of secession.
Need I go on, or would you care to read the document OP is referring to, yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mknalgas1758 Alright lemme dumb this down to make absolutely sure that it isn't my fault that you don't understand this:
- The Big Bang isn't an explosion of something from nothing. Something (everything, really) was in a very very small space, and it expanded outwards from that point at "T = 0" (simply, the very beginning of our concept of time).
- The Big Bang isn't really the "beginning of everything", because our scientific concept of "time" falls apart prior to that "T = 0" point. Beginnings, middles, and endings don't really work well when time itself doesn't make sense.
- The Big Bang has been substantiated by multiple experiments and tests, most-notably COBE and WMAP, which mapped out an image of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a direct remnant of the Big Bang.
Just because we don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang does not mean that any god--let alone Yahweh--is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe. And just because you don't understand why we know that the Big Bang happened, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
As a post-note: Evolution is not at all related to the Big Bang, nor is it related to the creation of Earth. Cosmic Inflation, planet formation, and animal evolution are all entirely different subjects, the latter not even falling under Cosmology or Astronomy.
TL;DR read a book bozo
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is why I was trying to establish understanding earlier and lay the groundwork for a proper discussion, because now you're just being inconsistent. Do I need to be convinced, or am I supposed to have faith?
I cannot force myself to be convinced of something. I will believe something only when I have enough evidence and understanding to stop not believing it, and vice versa. My beliefs may not always be consistent with reality or entirely void of cognitive bias, but they're also not really my conscious choice. I either believe it, or I don't.
Since you refused to define it, I'll take a definition from Google instead. Faith is defined as follows: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." With this definition, used most of the time by most of the Christians that I've spoken with, you are basically asking me to cross my fingers and hope super duper hard that you're right.
So am I supposed to hope really hard that it's true, or actually be convinced that its true? Don't you see how God might be dissatisfied with the fact that I just lied to myself until I started believing, instead of authentically coming to that conclusion? If you want me to authentically come to that conclusion, why are you so apathetic towards convincing me?
This card was bought from a Dollar Tree and these flowers are wilted, God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taken from another comment but certainly worth the read if you agree with this video:
"About a month ago, Sergei Kiriyenko, First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, during a report, told Putin that Elon Musk was looking for an opportunity to talk with the president. Putin then unequivocally spoke out against communication, but Kiriyenko suggested the following option: with Putin’s permission, a person who will impersonate the president of Russia and try to convince Musk of the correctness of the positions of the Russian leadership, making him (Musk) practically an agent of influence, not only to the millions of Elon's fans, but also to the American establishment.
At the same time, it was planned to take a “word of honor” from Musk that the conversation would be confidential and the very fact of it would not be made public. Arguing the safety of such a contact, Kiriyenko suggested that in the event that the fact of the conversation was made public, it should be explained that it was a prank to which the President of Russia had nothing to do.
Putin agreed and even approved a number of topics and arguments that a person speaking on behalf of Putin should speak to Musk. According to our information, the conversation took place, Musk discussed, or rather listened to, the positions and threats to the world of the man who spoke on behalf of Putin and promised to think about what he heard. Musk was promised that if the fact of the conversation remained a secret, then contacts would continue.
Putin was provided with a recording of the conversation and he was pleased not only with what he heard, but also with Musk's reaction to the conversation. Moreover, Kiriyenko's plans were to use several Western opinion leaders in this way to form the “correct” agenda and put pressure on the leadership of several European countries and the United States. Putin is waging war not only at the front, but also in the minds of people who are ready to help him win."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fatherson5907 The Census Bureau found that roughly 37.7% of Americans had college degrees. Using this data, combined with Statista's data on European countries, this puts TEN European countries ahead of the US. (In ascending order: Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Cyprus, and Ireland.)
The only way we start fixing our problems is to admit that we have them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Владислав Пилипенко Just as you said, it isn't straightforward. And just as you said, the idea of tribute is truly ancient. Idealistically, it makes sense that taxation would be theft because if we all volunteered, then there'd be no reason to enforce it as a law. However, this isn't the world of idealistic-ness. This is the real world where if there were not taxes, very few--if any at all--people would donate to the government, which is why there needs to be a enforced law to ensure people will be giving their fair share to the government. I misunderstood that you were dissatisfied with our system, and that is my fault, but dissatisfied or not, taxation is not, has not, and will never be theft
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1.) Please demonstrate that premarital sex has an impact on society at all, let alone a positive or negative one. The only surefire way to avoid pregnancy is celibacy, sure, but why is marriage the arbitrary border we set before people are allowed to have sex? (Especially when many people rush into a legally- and socially-binding marriage just to be able to have sex, only to be stuck in a relationship that isn't going to work out.)
2.) Two, please define "LGBT ideology". Last time I checked, "LGBT" is about loving a person, not about "ideology". If you have a problem with pre-marital sex, then you have a problem with pre-marital sex, not gay people. Unless you're thinking of an overtly-sexualised stereotype of a gay person because you understand the LGBT community that little. Take your nose out of your Bible and go meet a gay person or two before you make sweeping, homophobic generalisations like that.
3.) Who claims that LGBT are more or less helpful for society? LGBT Rights aren't about making our society more productive or efficient. It's about becoming more tolerant and respectful towards how individuals want to live their own lives, especially when they certainly aren't harming anyone just because they're gay. Gay people just want to love who they love without society coming down on them and condemning them for simply LOVING someone. Unless, you believe there are negative societal consequences for the proliferation of gay rights? I'd certainly love to hear what you have to say regarding that!
4.) Please tell me how forcing oneself to stay in a failing relationship is a positive influence on oneself, one's partner, or one's child? I do sincerely believe that a couple needs to be very stable in order to appropriately raise a child, but marriage doesn't necessarily make a couple more stable. And if one of the individuals involved is abusive, it can have serious mental and physical consequences for the other spouse (and even the child) involved. Parents who aren't fit to remain in a relationship should seek a mature divorce and still have a plan to properly support their child, even if the breaking down of the relationship wasn't the most ideal outcome in the first place. And "[Divorce] affects more than just the couple [...] up the 4th generation at least"? Do you have a citation for that, since we're in the mood to ask for "well-done science studies"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NinjaKittyBonks Not engaging you over your obsession with my channel. Sorry!
1.) Gender Queer was suggested for EDUCATORS (teachers) to read, not their students. A quick google search of "Gender Queer in schools" brings up a Poynter fact-checking article that pretty quickly debunks the notion that teachers are forcing 1st- and 2nd-Graders to read Gender Queer. According to the article, "Fox News itself noted the NEA’s list was for educators in a separate online article published July 4." Following blowback, the NEA (National Education Association) appended its recommendation on the 5th, saying, "Educators read diverse books so that they can better understand their colleagues, students, and families they serve... The books here are not recommended for students." I sincerely encourage you to examine information that gives you a strong emotional reaction. More often then not, it's doing that to hide the fact that it isn't true.
You go on about this book for three paragraphs, but given that I've provided a source that debunks your claim at the root--that young children are being exposed to "Gender Queer"--I needn't address this further. I don't appreciate the constant bad faith accusations. Many of your comments have gone missing, so I haven't been able to read them!
2.) I agree that young kids shouldn't have access to porn from their school libraries. We disagree, however, on what constitutes "porn". Please tell me about a book that is actually pornographic, and is also actually available to children in the public school system, so that we can continue this discussion. I will happily go through and address every single book that comes to your homophobic little mind. <3
3.) You may be personally invested in stopping children from seeing porn, but that investment is being manipulated by the people you receive your information from. They do want to hide the existence of gay people, because it serves their homophobic interests. You, by spreading the misinformation that they made up, are helping them to erase gay people.
Do you just uncritically think that there is some mysterious force pushing (((THE AGENDA))), or do you actually mean something specific by that? WHOSE agenda is it? What do they intend to accomplish by allegedly putting explicit material in schools?
4.) There is actually no difference between the things you listed and the book we are discussing, in the sense that NEITHER ARE AVAILABLE TO SCHOOL CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChrisRJ LMAO WHAT??? We haven't spent one hundred TRILLION dollars on this war? After a brief Google search, I've gathered that we've given Ukraine roughly 20 to 30 BILLION dollars in aid, both material and financial. The US National Debt is over 30 TRILLION. That means that we've spent less than .1% of the National Debt on Ukraine. If you think that .1% is in any way significant, then you are lost.
To put that in perspective, Russia has spent 82 billion on this war, which is a QUARTER of their ENTIRE ANNUAL BUDGET. The US, on the other hand, has only spent the aforementioned 20 - 30 billion. That is less than FOUR PERCENT (4%) of our MILITARY BUDGET. We are literally witnessing the United States (and her allies) absolutely DEMOLISH the Russians through the raw power of our economy, with little to no effort.
(Disclaimer: I am not an expert. These numbers are by no means exact, but they should give you a pretty clear picture of just how totally we are wiping the floor with the enemy.)
I don't even know what to say about that NATO comment though. I mean, did you live during the Cold War at all? Do you understand the significance of our overseas allies? Their economies, their military power, the territory they control. The price we pay for abandoning the alliance is our status as a global super-power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's bad at rhetoric? Also, this is a weird hill to die on, and isn't a whole lot better than the "ripe and fertile" bit. When I was 16, I had literally no clue what I wanted to do with my life. I'm 22, and I still have no idea what I want to do with my life. I don't think, even with parental consent, that 16-year-olds have the experience and capacity to make an informed decision about marriage. Minors should, under no circumstances, be allowed to marry.
Honestly, I don't think a person should even start thinking about marriage until they're 25, but that's more of a "what you should/shouldn't do" thing rather than what I think should actually be law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0.) We may have gotten a little mixed up with our language here. Traditionally, Christianity has had huge sway over Western culture, and I think moral relativists and moral realists alike would agree that, at the very least, a lot of Western morality is derived from the Christian religion.
However, speaking contemporarily, Christianity doesn't have much bearing over pop culture. In fact, in my generation, overly-religious people are often viewed as irritating and unattractive. Not that Christianity doesn't have a cool aesthetic, but people obsessed with spreading their religion (or people who are "straight-edge", so to speak) are just kind of not "cool" or "fun to hang out with", from an average zoomer's point of view.
Now, I'm not trying to defend or refute this stereotype, because I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion. The point is that a culture that is downstream from the Church wouldn't necessarily view it's adherents as nerdy and unattractive, don't you think? (Though in fairness this is pretty anecdotal and might have a lot to do with my progressive worldview and the people I surround myself with. I'm sure Christians probably have a more favorable image in conservative circles.)
1.) The fact that Biological Evolution is newer than Christianity is not what makes it better, per se. It's the fact that Biological Evolution pulls from new information that we acquire through the scientific method, whereas Christianity sticks to its 2,000-year-old guns, stubbornly claiming that it's been right this whole time! (Though, in actuality, Christian beliefs do tend to change as culture does, despite Christians of every era confidently proclaiming that they've had it right since the very beginning, and will continue to be right until the very end.)
2.) I am a layman when it comes to Evolution (though my lay understanding is better than no understanding at all, which is what you appear to have), so I will try to keep my defense here brief. First and foremost, the Theory of Evolution refers to the changes in gene frequency over time. That's it. If you have a problem with Abiogenesis (which is still a very active field of research) or the Big Bang Theory (which is pretty much a closed case at this point), then you have an issue with SCIENCE, not Evolution.
2a.) DNA is just information. Enzymes read this information, and then use that information to make proteins. "Adding" or "subtracting" DNA doesn't happen in the context of evolution. If you somehow removed DNA from a living creature, it would be unable to produce new cells and it would die. For an example of that, look no further than the story of Hisashi Ouchi.
There are, in fact, several types of mutations that happen to DNA that change how the DNA is interpreted by the enzymes. This is how mutations manifest phenotypically. For more information on this, I sincerely suggest you Google search "types of mutations" and click on the first result, which should be a page from Berkeley's website. (I'd link you, but I'm not sure if JP allows links in his comment section and I want you to actually see my comment so you can respond to it lol)
2b.) As I understand it, organelles weren't just aimlessly floating around, waiting to be swallowed by some random cell. However, my understanding of how Eukaryotic cells came about is a bit sparse, so I recommend you check out Professor Dave Explains' Biology series or Forrest Valkai's "Light of Evolution" series, as both are fantastic at explaining the Theory of Evolution to laymen like you and I.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CyB3RpVnk16
It costs my country (the US) 10,000,000 dollars EVERY YEAR to maintain EACH INDIVIDUAL WARHEAD we have. All five thousand of them.
You cannot tell me, with a straight face, that Russia's nuclear capabilities are anywhere NEAR those of the United States in 2024. Do you think we weren't watching while your economy collapsed in the 90s and you sold half of your military to other countries?
What a joke. You and your military.
-------------------------------------------------------
Поддержание КАЖДОЙ ОТДЕЛЬНОЙ БОЕВОЙ ЧАСТИ, которая у нас есть, обходится моей стране (США) в 10 000 000 долларов КАЖДЫЙ ГОД. Все пять тысяч.
Вы не можете сказать мне с серьезным лицом, что ядерный потенциал России где-то БЛИЗКО к ядерному потенциалу Соединенных Штатов в 2024 году. Вы думаете, мы не наблюдали, как ваша экономика рухнула в 90-е годы, и вы продали половину своих вооруженных сил другим странам? ?
Ну и шутка. Ты и твоя армия.
(Переведено с помощью Google Translate)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Duude125 Wikipedia's page on Maui outlines the Federal Response to Maui. The following are a few quotes from that section:
"U.S. President Joe Biden ordered the mobilization of "all available federal assets" to help respond to the wildfires."
"President Biden approved the state of Hawaii's request for a major disaster declaration on August 10, making federal funding available for recovery efforts in the affected areas."
"FEMA initially provided $700 payments as one of several types of federal assistance available to survivors of the wildfire, which was meant to address immediate needs such as food, water, and clothing."
There is a more detailed timeline on the Wikipedia page, showing responses from not only the Federal government, but also the Hawaii State government, international governments, and even grass-roots fundraising/donations. As for rebuilding, we JUST past the one-year mark since THE DEADLIEST NATURAL DISASTER IN HAWAIIAN HISTORY, so it's taking a little while to rebuild entire towns from the ground up. Is that the federal government's job?
Are you doing anything to help Maui, since you seem so concerned?
1
-
1
-
@Duude125 Wikipedia's page on Maui outlines the Federal Response to Maui. The following are a few quotes from that section:
"U.S. President Joe Biden ordered the mobilization of "all available federal assets" to help respond to the wildfires."
"President Biden approved the state of Hawaii's request for a major disaster declaration [...], making federal funding available for recovery efforts in the affected areas."
"FEMA initially provided $700 payments as one of several types of federal assistance available to survivors of the wildfire, which was meant to address immediate needs such as food, water, and clothing."
There is a more detailed timeline on the Wikipedia page, showing responses from not only the Federal government, but also the Hawaii State government, international governments, and even grass-roots fundraising/donations. As for rebuilding, we JUST past the one-year mark since THE DEADLIEST NATURAL DISASTER IN HAWAIIAN HISTORY, so it's taking a little while to rebuild entire towns from the ground up. Is that the federal government's job?
Are you doing anything to help Maui, since you seem so concerned?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabrielclark1425 TL;DR - Ocean warming is a slow, long-term effect, not just something that popped up this month!
The reason our oceans are getting warmer and warmer is because of the "greenhouse effect" that "greenhouse gasses" (like Methane and Carbon Dioxide) make. Kinda like how the glass windows on your car let sunlight in to heat up the inside, but then trap that heat and make it REALLY hot in the summer. Or.. y'know.. the glass windows on a greenhouse, the namesake of the effect.
The warming of our atmosphere is, in turn, warming our oceans. As years get hotter and hotter, our oceans have more and more heat energy to donate to forming storms. Oceans are big, though, so these effects are the result of long-term changes to weather currents and ocean temperature. If we somehow "turned off" Climate Change right now, we'd still be dealing with these negative effects for a few years before things started to calm down.
I am oversimplifying (because meteorology is incredibly complex and I'm certainly not an expert) and probably getting some things wrong, so I encourage you to do some research on your own!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damonwilson3577 We aren't giving money to Ukraine because we "owe it to them", but because they are on the frontline of Russia's westward expansionism (both by military conquest and cultural manipulation through misinformation, the latter of which you've clearly fallen victim to). If you don't care about the innocent Ukrainians dying in this war of Russian aggression, then you surely care for our allies and our standing on the global stage. If Russia is allowed to continue its advance, ALL OF US will suffer (culturally, financially, physically, mentally).
I have no idea who told you that we don't have oversight for our money going to Ukraine, but that is factually wrong. I give you The Ukraine Investigations Dashboard for September 2023 from the US Office of the Inspector General: https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Ukraine%20Investigations%20Dashboard%20%28Sept%202023%29_0.pdf
By no means do I think that this is perfect or wholesome in its scope, but it's also not nothing despite what you claimed. Dude. This was literally 15 seconds of Google searching and 5 minutes of reading.
My point in bringing up our spending figures is to establish that we are barely throwing around our logistical heft and absolutely crushing the Russian military while we do it (in no small part thanks to the brave sacrifices of Ukrainian soldiers DEFENDING THEIR HOMELAND).
This war isn't about territory anymore, but attrition. And, as the Russians learned in the 1940s, when the US is feeding and fueling and arming your military, you won't lose that war of attrition. And even if Ukraine loses, they only lose about 20% of their territory, while Russia will have to sit on a ruined economy, a failed coup, and a devastated military.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1