Youtube comments of (@snowcat9308).

  1. 12000
  2. 6000
  3. 5700
  4. 775
  5. 580
  6. 285
  7. 199
  8. 118
  9. 98
  10. 93
  11. 82
  12. 81
  13. 78
  14. 76
  15. 76
  16. 64
  17. 64
  18. 60
  19. 59
  20. 57
  21. 48
  22. 42
  23. 40
  24. 36
  25. 36
  26. 32
  27. 31
  28. 31
  29. 30
  30. 30
  31. 28
  32. 28
  33. 27
  34. 25
  35. 24
  36. 24
  37. 24
  38. 23
  39. 22
  40. 22
  41. 22
  42. 22
  43. 22
  44. 21
  45. 21
  46. 20
  47. 20
  48. 20
  49. 20
  50. 19
  51. 18
  52. 17
  53. 17
  54. 17
  55. 17
  56. 16
  57. 16
  58. 16
  59. 14
  60. 14
  61. 13
  62. 13
  63. 13
  64. 13
  65. 13
  66. 12
  67. 12
  68. 12
  69. 12
  70. 12
  71. 11
  72. 11
  73. 11
  74. 11
  75. 11
  76. 11
  77. 11
  78. 11
  79. 11
  80. 10
  81. 10
  82. 10
  83. 10
  84. 9
  85. 9
  86. 9
  87. 9
  88. 9
  89. 9
  90. 9
  91. 9
  92. 9
  93. 9
  94. 8
  95. 8
  96. 8
  97. 8
  98. 8
  99. 8
  100. 7
  101. 7
  102. 7
  103. 7
  104. 7
  105. 7
  106. 7
  107. 7
  108. 7
  109. 7
  110. 7
  111. 7
  112. 7
  113. 7
  114. 7
  115. 7
  116. 6
  117. 6
  118. 6
  119. 6
  120. 6
  121. 6
  122. 6
  123. 6
  124. 6
  125. 6
  126. 6
  127. 6
  128. 6
  129. 6
  130. 6
  131. 6
  132. 6
  133. 6
  134. 6
  135. 6
  136. 6
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 5
  151. 5
  152. 5
  153. 5
  154. 5
  155. 5
  156. 5
  157. 5
  158. 5
  159. 5
  160. 5
  161. 5
  162. 5
  163. 5
  164. 5
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. 4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. 4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610.  @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
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104.  @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
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. ​@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
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. ​ @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
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383.  @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
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 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
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 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
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. ​ @NinjaKittyBonks  Which books were showing sexual material to five-year-olds? As I understand it, books discussing LGBT stuff do just that: discuss it. I would be very interested to see examples of these "graphic descriptions" and "suggestive images" that could be understood by someone who is five. Unless two male ice cream cones holding hands is what you consider to be "graphic". "Same-sex images or scenes" are not adult activities. Same-sex intercourse is an adult activity, as all intercourse is (or should be). I hate to take the worst-faith interpretation of what you're saying, but the constant conflation of gay relationships and gay sex is the modus operandi of right. It serves there interests to associate gay people with the perceived "gross"-ness of sex to their prude voterbase. If you aren't conflating the two intentionally, then you've been drinking too much of the Daily Wyre's cool aid. The concept of an "age of consent" is actually a fairly recent development, which is why there are quite a few countries around the world (even in Europe) with the age of consent as low as 14. Of course, I don't think it should be that low. But the idea that there is any kind of consensus about that (especially for/over "thousands of years") is completely wrong. I'm not asking that every five year old receive a graphic description of sex in order to graduate kindergarten. But by the end of elementary school (so like 8 or 9) should at least know that gay people exist. They certainly know that straight people do! I had already been in and out of my first relationship by the time I was in 4th grade, and we all got "the talk" when we were in 5th. "Protecting the developing mind" from the existence of gay people isn't responsible... it's censorship.
    1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654.  @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
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 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
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. ​ @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
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1