Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
144
-
80
-
63
-
49
-
39
-
29
-
23
-
13
-
@bobdonda Sorry, but you're just a really stupid person, pal. The laws needs to based on actual principles, norms to be count as a law. Yours aren't based on anything.
You support on what basis? The basis of slavery is considering human as property, what norm goes against that? All human are equal? If you are against slavery then you're also against abortion. The fetus is count as a human, human DNA, stage of human body, traits of a human being.
Use your brain, it's not your choice if the biological feature of your body goes against your will. Men doesn't want to die on the battlefield but we have to, so deal with it. It's an absurd thing when we gave women the right to vote even though they don't have to register for the draft. So when you go against the basis of human being, it's no longer your right or choice, that concept can only exist when you've accepted the norm. Use your brain.
8
-
6
-
@Britannic hayyomatt No, the problem with you, kid, is that you can't distinguish between actual norms and your own norms. Not the other way around, your right in the real world isn't defined by your definition of anything, it is defined by what others decide what it is. That's how a society is formed.
Womens aren't affected that much in war, kid. Losing a husband isn't the same as getting shot, want to know why? Study Geography, there's a specific chapter on population pointing ot why the gender structure can be balanced even though people have more preference to boys. Guess what? Wars killed a few millions of men, not women. Bombing? Kid, if there are bombing, they kill all people, not just the women, 10 soldiers = 1 nurse, nice try, kid. A movie recommendations? Too see whether medic in the fields are women or men, idiot.
You're arguing the basis of life on an absolute basis, and that's just ridiculous. Here's the shortened version for you, if you want your baseless opinion be taken into account, then others baseless opinion shall also be taken into account, a serial killer wish to kill you as he doesn't consider you life is okay, right? Different opinion, true? Use your brain, unless you. An unknown, probably not that smart person can come up with an absolute definition with actual proof to form a new society that allows for random killing based on opinions, then we, the smart ones shall followed the previously agreed rules of the free world. Which is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which we're compassion enough to include you in it, protecting your right to live, your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness even though you think that you have no such rights, as in how you decided that laws varied in individual.
If it's too long, here's the shortened of the shortened version. IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER A FETUS A LIFE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT, SO THINK WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, IF WE DON'T CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, WE CAN JUST KILL YOU?
You'll probably be desperate enough to type something totally irrelevant to the question trying to save face, but tell yourself what you wanna hear, smoke what kind of substance you want to smoke, it can't change the truth. Think it your way, well, go into space, that's where laws varied from people to people, and that's actual space, not inside spaceships.
Your place where laws can be defined on your own "opinion" doesn't exist on Earth.
5
-
5
-
@Liam No, but time is irreversible, doesn't matter whether 50 years or 2 years.
The point here is that, if your nonsense is in "most of the case", well, in "most of the case", regarding the death penalty, we got it right. So your argument fell apart again.
Your argument for not enacting the death penalty is because it might damage the person's life forever if it is a mistrial or such. My example shows that if that argument can be made, the entire prison system, or any sort of punishment that can not guarantee a perfect outcome should also be abolish.
Prison itself can be a place where people gets kill, it's a "maybe", just like the "maybe" in your death penalty argument.
Loosing your life innocently happens in every sort of activities, those are called risk. Paragliding, Scubadiving, Driving itself can be deadly, those are called risk, pal.
Deal with it, we as a society deems the risk of having undeserving punishment for severe crimes to be much dangerous than the slight possibility of making a mistake in trial.
If your argument is "because it's not perfect" then you should destroy it, that argument has been rejected centuries ago.
5
-
@Liam Wrong again, if you think that the capital punishment is unnecessary, many people think otherwise.
It's called fairness, those who commit the utmost crime is way more severe than any other crime, but faces the same sentence, that is just unfair to other criminals.
So I guess this is a different on principle.
My way of thinking is that you need a fair punishment for any crime. And of course, that is laid out in almost every civilization in the world. Those who shed blood of men, whose blood shall be shed by men.
Not just Christianity, it's in every civilization, Egypt, Persia, China, even today it's very obvious that it's a fair punishment to murderers and terrorists.
You disagree, fine, but we think that it is. And we surely have a stronger logical ground than yours.
You can not explain why it is unnecessary, why would a murderer not be killed? His victims didn't get the luxury of living a life at all.
Human from ancient times, to now have considered death to be the most severe punishment, because death or death like-status are also the most tragic accidents.
So it's only fair if the most horrendous crime be met with the most severe punishment. Life in prison is not that bad compared to death, if you're a hitman or a gang banger, who do you think runs the gangs in prison?
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Reedskiii But that compensation is never fully equal to the time they have lost, and certainly, if a person is wrongly executed, their family can also be compensated.
The fact that risk happens in everything, pal, it happens with driving, diving, flying.
Even imprisoning people have risks, and I don't know where you get the 4% number from, that is insane.
There is no data on the nonsense 4% number.
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230/tab-article-info
I suspect you get that 4% fictional number from these sites. 4% doesn't mean 4% people are executed wrongfully, it means that 4% of people being convicted to death penalty have been deferred to other means of punishment, while 1.6% are exonerated and released, they generated the extra 2.4% by lying about how if the person is no longer under death row, then it must be false conviction, this is definitely a lie.
Because even if you're no longer under death row, the factor can not be solely contributed because you didn't commit the crime, it could be due to you cutting a deal and testify in other cases.
They indicate that because they're no longer facing death row, then people wouldn't try as hard to solve their case. That is correct, but unfortunately, that is also correct to every other inmates in the system.
So your number of 4% false conviction, that is wrong. The actual number of false conviction is 1.6%, and the number of false executed people is even less, because the wrongly convicted people shall be released if their cases can be proven wrong.
Like I say, risks happens in everything, and the risk of wrongly execution here is not 4%, pal, don't lie about it.
It's much lower and the people accept that risk. If you don't accept it, go vote, other people voted against you, game over.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Liam Like I pointed out in another reply,that number 4% is wrong to the utmost extent. They took a 1.6% exoneration rate of death row inmates and raise to 4% by assuming that inside the pool of death row inmates which were changed to life sentencing or such, there are still innocent people. This is true, but those people are no longer on death row, so the obvious rate for false conviction here is the same as any other prisoner serving a non-death row sentence. And that is a risk we have to take, unless you want to abolish prison due to the imperfection of the system.
I'd prefer no prison at all if I had committed a crime, but sorry, that's now how it works, that is why you don't commit crimes.
People who run gangs in prison lives a fairly mundane life, it's not comfortable, but it's infinitely better than their victims, their victims are usually dead.
Like I pointed out, that 4% number is a lie, the best you can get to is 1.6% of inmates being released after proven innocent, it has nothing to do with the rate of wrongfully executed prisoners, there might be some, in history, you can pointed out 8 cases. And that's out of nearly 16000 execution. So the risk here is much smaller than the false number.
And you're also ignoring the consequences of having an unfitting punishment towards a crime. If a criminal know that he can't die killing all sorts of people, in the case of desperation, why wouldn't he kill a bunch of people? He'll still live, still get to meet his family and such,in prison there are gangs, friends, maybe. All these factors has to be considered.
Whether the danger of having small rate of wrongfully executed people or the danger of having an unfitting punishment for a crime is bigger. That is up to vote, if you don't like it, vote against it. Other people voted against you, game over.
World has imperfections, people accepted this imperfection, you don't, that's your problem. You haven't made an convincing enough argument for people to accept your idea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@englishfury1544 Now this your false logic here, you misunderstood.
The video doesn't mention any particular god, god here is understood as a higher being, beyond natural "facts".
Tons of science don't based on any natural facts but they're just theories which can explain partially the facts, science is just human understanding of something, and the question the video proposed is the absolute truth. Do you know everything to solely claim that only your theory applies here? And how do you prove your theory that there is no god?
There isn't any theory about electrons before it was discovered, doesn't mean it's not there. Belief wise, you can't disprove any of those beliefs, society wise, you don't apply it on laws because not all people feel the same despite what the truth can be.
So the main point isn't to prove what god there is, the main point is to say to people like you that if you don't know everything, don't claim that you do.
Think a bit, pal.
2
-
2
-
@Liam Multiple people will say that they won't commit crime so that they won't be facing any punishment.
The death penalty is essential, pal, according to people who vote for it, it is essential. The determination whether something is essential or not is from a personal standpoint, and they put it to a vote.
There are still innocent people being jailed but that's the imperfections here. There are innocent people dying due to driving, people have accepted that.
The underlying facts here are not facts. Those are your assumptions.
Whether something is "essential" is your assumption. Because it's essential to what? People say that it's essential to maintain a low crime rate on certain behavior. In Asian countries, the death penalty is applied widely to drug dealings, and of course, they stop the drug dealings there.
Sure there are drugs, but people were way too afraid to commit the crime. It doesn't completely stop it but it reduces it much more than in America.
So whether the death penalty is essential is due to the measurements of each individuals.
You are thinking with emotions, not facts.
Driving kills innocent people, prison jails innocent people. Electricity itself can kill people. Like I pointed out, it is a risk.
Your entire argument relies on your opinion of the death penalty not being essential. You based this assumption on what? Essential to what? Certain people say that it is essential to maintain order and reduce crime.
Death penalty is a punishment, pretty much like prison itself, but on a much severe level. How do you distinguish prison and death penalty? To certain people, people who have been raped in prison, death might be the better solution than life sentence. It's all subjective when it comes to adjective of the matter, pal.
And to determine whether a certain standard be applied, people vote.
You say it's not essential, other people say it's essential. And other people vote for it, you voted against them.
They win, you loose, that's life.
Let's admit the fact that you have no basis to say that the death penalty is non essential. Because it's only non essential to you.
To Asian countries, it's very essential. Who are you to say that they're wrong?
They say that abortion is a disgusting act, who are they to say that the US is wrong.
There are subjective facts, and there are your opinion.
Whether something is essential or not is opinion based.
To you, food security might be essential, but to a Budhist, only minimum to survive food is enough, they prefer quiet time of enlightenment than food security. Who are you to say that they're wrong?
Get down from your high horse and get back to reality pal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Liam It's your opinion that people rejected. Sorry. If people voted for the death penalty, which means to them, the death penalty is essential, then it means the basis of your "anti death penalty", which is how the death penalty is not essential, that basis of yours have been rejected.
You can only make argument based on the pre-accepted grounds, pal.
You need to base your death penalty argument on certain pre-agreed upon basis. Such as the right to something, the unalienable rights to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. If the death penalty conflict with those certain agreed upon value, then you have a case. Such as the case for abolishing slavery, it's easy due to the "all men are created equal" philosophy.
You need a contradiction to convince people that they're conflicting.
The argument based on how you "feel" that the death penalty is non-essential is not a convincing one. Just saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnnypenso9574 Yes pal, that's what I'm saying. The majority of Asian students come from poor families, and that's not actually poor, just not high enough to be adequate in the American society. Therefore admitting them in force the school to provide aids, and why should they give out money to 10 exact people with no major difference, are you Asian, I'm Asian. Went to Columbia, there are Asians who got in because they're different than the rest, it's just that the population of Asian is too much so that those who got it can't change the graphic. Clear?
People with gold medal IMO, international Physics from my country did get in because those are actual achievements, example, Ngo Bao Chau, Fields Medal winner.
But getting high grades in an intellectually poor education is not. The SAT, any Asians rooted students could get 800 on Math easily, because we studied in a different manners. But do those manners can translate into excellence, no.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@englishfury1544 No, it's not how it works. You're just lying to yourself, you can't prove or disprove something that you have no information about, so you by default saying that it doesn't exist in the society. But when talking about absolute truth, as I said, you have nothing. It's up to people's belief.
And with the electrons, maybe a few thousand years before that experiment, there was no theory, but electrons still exist, again, your argument crumbled.
Like I said, the absolute truth, you can't prove it, you can't prove any of modern physic theory, it's a theory, if you found that it is correct, than it's correct, you can't prove it. Which is why so many theories are only hypothesis and got rejected every year, and also countless previous theories are replaced by newer ones.
Nobody claim God, they claim that you don't know everything and claiming no God is just as stupid.
Don't try to lie because you've been destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonsimpson1617 Buddy, check your math, the social services programs, which are supposedly paid by payroll tax is the biggest sort of debt increase.
The military cost 700 billions, an that's to protect the freedom of the entire world. Military in Japan, Europe was put in place after WW2 so that no other nation can have a solid military force, big enough to wage war again. So yeah, military is a necessity spending, 75 millions death in the last world war is more than enough of a reason to spend for military.
And the number for social services? In 2018, the collected payroll tax is 1.2 trillion, but the actual spending for social services, which are supposed to be paid by the payroll tax, is actually 1.8 trillion.
So yeah, we can see which programs increase the debt, it's probably the programs that cost more than what we have.
And the feds started printing never added the debt, most of the national debt are in dollars, so if the feds want to print money, that would cause inflation on products but not on the debts, because the debts are still in dollars, we can print more dollars, and one dollar we print more is the same as one dollar we owe. The point is that after we print more money, prices will spike, we can cheat the game just like China, but we don't do that. Because we have more civility.
And my tax dollars which went to well fare almost never went to a struggling family, in the most exceptional case, maybe a family that does well fare actually needs it. In most case, it went to people who are taking advantage of the system, you can see them protesting for free money on the street. 47% of the people pays no income tax, but still gets free services from the government. You're arguing that 47% of the people is struggling? That 47% of the working population, which is 100 millions people are struggling?Or is it they're taking advantage of the system? Their payroll tax doesn't pay their payroll cost at all. I just pointed out.
So yeah, pal, you need to check the actual number, study the real theory and action behind it.
You're way over your head currently, study more.
The national debt is increased the most by social programs, look at the number, and the fed printing money causes inflation but it shall reduce the debt.
For example, if the fed print 20 trillion dollars tomorrow, the inflation rate shall spike by 2000%, but all the debt would be paid because the debt is in dollars. So if the fed print money to pay for the debt, it will cause hyper-inflation but it will does nothing to increase the debt. Of course, we don't do that because it will cause hype-inflation and that is very bad. Study more, pal.
1
-
@brandonsimpson1617 I'm pretty sure that 47% of the population is currently doing on welfare.
It's in the numbers, if 47% of the people are not paying any tax besides payroll tax, and you can only do that if you have low earning jobs, it will be a certainty that they shall use social programs in the future. and it's also a certainty that program which they will use, will not be paid for by them, because the current program is that the people pay now to spend on later in their life. The current tax for welfare program now is coming from their pocket, but it's not enough, actual welfare spending is 1.8 trillion, tax collected for welfare is 1.2 trillion. Do the simple math, pal. In the future, this number will spike, due to how more and more people shall be using the programs.
But the current rate is not enough to pay for the current number of users. So unless you're paying income tax, there is no chance that you can actually pay for what you will receive.
Clear?
It's not propaganda, it's fact, when you can not collect enough money to pay for what you spend, other people's money have to cover for you if you want to spend. And by law, somehow, welfare is a "must-spend", despite it shall never be paid for fully, it's justification for stealing.
And the interest put on by the feds, explain how that add to the debt. Go ahead, the fed doesn't control the interest rates on treasury bills.
And if the interest rates are too high for you to pay, you need to stop spending. How about starting with something you can never pay for? Welfare.
47%, pal, it's not propaganda, it's fact. What is your bubble? Everybody pays tax and we're in debt due to the military?
Yeah, nice bubble, it's just not reality. Military spending is the essence of federal spending, they're one of the few things that the government is built to sustain.
Even socialist countries spend on military.
And every year, the number of money not collected through payroll tax but is paid into welfare, it's about another military for the US. So, no, the numbers are exceptionally clear. The welfare is a death trap, you shall never be able to collect what you will be force to pay out, and it shall increase indefinitely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhikahuja3773 She was chosen to represent the public, by definition, the public also vested her the right of using her own belief as a measure of the public if she deemed so. She abstained.
And Berkeley idiots, not being harassed isn't a right, but the first amendment purpose is not to let you say whatever every single kind of stupid and vial things possible. That's just abusing the law loopholes.
Consequences is one thing, extreme reaction based on moronic judgement, false ideology, no logic is not consequence, it's stupidity. It's immoral, unless you're saying immoral and stupidity is okay just because it's protected by the law? Go back to school, if you're going to Berkeley to learn social sciences, switch now while you still can, at least think a bit.
1
-
1
-
@UC0Rl7bQFO7OLSTZUGgtOuUg And there, done, your logic crumbled right there. If you have the right to say anything like your previous argument in how the students can react to her Christian belief just because they want to, it hurts her the same way somebody feel sad about being "harassed" sexually.
Now is that their fault for feeling bad or is the people's fault for speaking legally, in any sort logic, if sexually harassment is wrong, then the extreme action of people insulting her without reasons is also very wrong.
Not to say that any criticism or sexually oriented comment is wrong, no that's not how it works, if a person can justify their comments with logic and sensible reasons then it is justified, that's how law and order is built.
But like I said, before, it's wrong morally, not wrong legally, sexual harassment is a propaganda term, it's defined based on the subject aka the person being talked about, if the definition varies, any law relating to that is in some way very confusing and unclear, full of holes. You don't need to wait for consent before speaking, pal, any lawyer who defend in court will destroy that argument into pieces.
Berkeley is ranked very high by who? An unknown organization with unknown justification, unknown reasons? The sub prime mortgage bond was also ranked very high, they caused a global economy crisis.
Like I said before, judge things using your mind, otherwise you're gambling using your perception of the world.
Berkeley student isn't smart, they're highly skilled, anybody above average can do that with the right amount of training, most students from Asia will destroy you in computer science, math, physics, anything academically related. The only exception is that you're located in America, full of resources.
Here's the simple truth, science-wise, computer science, math, anything relating to calculations and equations, Berkeley might be the top, even though it is not clear what is the top because the result of alumnis are due to the alumnis themselves, not the school.,
Social science-wise, Berkeley is a hell hole, full of idiots who know nothing except their own opinion.
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco What voters? By that logic of mob rule then should 50,1% of the population don't have to do anything and just vote for 99% tax on the people who does things?
Democracies like that can only work in a perfect society where everybody works the same, contribute the same, DESERVE the same.
There's a thing called ethic, study pal, the current situation is already heavily unfair, somehow the top 1% is paying for 40% of the country, they're taking a loss, it's basically forced slavery, but they have no choice, without them, the country will fail.
But look yourself in the mirror and ask, is it stealing, because it obviously is.
The rich are sacrificing themselves and the ungrateful brats are keep going, it's called immoral, stupidity.
Voting doesn't decide ethics, in this case, the ethics are so clear, but people are just looking away.
An example, why don't you, in your community, pay out 27 times the fees of others?
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco
again, pal, you're living in a bubble again, they're not students anymore, legally they drink, they waste money, they waste time. If a person over 18 drunk driving and kill somebody, he'll go to jail. So unless you want to push the age to maybe 25, then your vision is totally crazy.
Groups pushing student loans are called governments, the loans aren't bad, the point is that the kid wasted the loans, you wasted money then it's the fault of the person who lend you money? Think a bit.
Self made individuals are from real life, moron, wants a clue? Look at the rise of millionaires. Idiot.
And the argument of stupidity, again, it's false, pal, even with the correct information, the stupid people can't make decisions, want a clue? They're called the left, when a person looses an argument with all the facts given to them beforehand, it's because they believe in a distorted version of the truth, which makes them stupid. For example you, I just pointed it out.
People working in major tech companies,
Pal, don't blame others just because you're pathetic, it's called ethics, study.
Restrictions put on choices? So you're saying that mature people can't take loans anymore? Or you're saying that student loans need to have guaranteed asset, which is the old ways which the liberals promising free money for all removed and replaced with this current broken system?
If you don't have a single argument, pal, it's better to stay quiet. You're just nitpicking pieces and ignore parts that you were destroyed.
1
-
@Sylvertaco
pal, are you a troll?
Like I said, stop nitpicking parts of the argument, you've been destroyed, even the nitpick is horrible.
Push the age to 25 means the age of taking responsibility to your action, pal, people under 18 aren't considered adults, but people are above 18, taking loans and such needs to have responsibility. Stop trolling around.
The people giving out loans, as I pointed out, are liberals. They want free money, no guaranteed asset, it's fraudulent, but they still do it. So either you admit that the policy is wrong, therefore crumbling your own argument of backing up massive governmental action on the public funding, or crumbling your own argument of how people are not stupid. So either way, you lose, nice try.
Promoting self made individuals aren't idealistic, if you had went to school, the would've taught you that, that's why people go yo school, pal.
I just gave you the argument and you ignored it and pretend like no argument, pal, if you're a troll, I suggest going to a macdonalds ad, not here.
Go back to school, small time troll, you have no argument, you ignore facts when given to you because it burst your little bubble, go back to school, pathetic troll.
When you've been destroyed, don't pretend that you're winning, it's not gonna work. Pathetic.
1
-
@Sylvertaco Okay, you troll, like I said, don't pretend as such you're winning when you've been destroyed.
The first obvious nitpick you make is when asserting that "people" are not stupid, I made the point of people being stupid to debunked your assumption of mob ruling will never go bad, given the example of how student loans are going down because people are making mistakes one their own.
You claiming that because they're "students" despite them all being over 18 then it's not their fault but the fault of people who gives the loan.
This argument of yours contradict the initial reply of saying that policies giving out taxpayers money are made due to the voting so it's never wrong. Who do you think give out the loans, kid?
Government gives out student loans, it's not their money to give out, the policy is reckless, but it's made due to voting. So is the policy wrong or correct?
You say that people giving out loans needs to take responsibility because students are stupid, while the same time saying that policies of giving out the loans will never go bad because people aren't stupid. Read, kid. Yeah, it's not actually nitpicking, it's just stupid argument.
Banks don't give out student loans, kid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3QSHVNDlaM
Here, nice try. Too much reality for you?
And another nitpicking you did was on the sentence: "Promoting self made individuals aren't idealistic, if you had went to school, they would've taught you that"
Your assumption that this sentence means everything being taught in school is correct is nitpicking, it's also stupid interpretation, self made individuals are good examples happen to be taught in school, it doesn't mean everything taught in school are great.
Clear, kid?
We can keep doing this where I destroyed your arguments and you keep pretending that you've destroyed mine, despite it's obviously not because you don't even know that student loans aren't given out by the banks, so,
If you want to troll, go to a MacDonald's ad.
1
-
@Sylvertaco Nice try, kid, you can't just type long sentence to save your ass, just pathetic.
Policies giving away money is what the majority wants, but then you also say that the policy is wrong, so despite knowing that it's wrong, your argument for it is mob rule majority.
The basic is that you don't have any point of argument. What are you arguing for kid?
And banks can not give out student loans, your Google search skill is pathetic, I just gave you a clip of how large banks confirm that they don't do students loans. The majority of those loans are by policies giving away free money, by the government, you moron. That's what majority wants , and the policy is just wrong.
So your argument is the policy is wrong but that's what the majority mob wants and that's okay?
Go back to school, little troll.
You don't have any logic, you don't have a point to argue for it's just nitpicking, go back to school, little troll.
What Google search shows that. The overwhelming majority of student loans are made by any factors other than the government? Give a link, pathetic moron. You can't even do a simple search, that's not stupidity?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 First off, kid, she did abstain, watch the video.
And next, separation of church and state means not letting values of the church to dictate the decision of the state. As in how you can't put in religion based laws and regulation. However, the state is also a organization based on the vote. If the people voted her even with her religious belief, like I said, she is vested the power to use her judgement, her belief as a representation of the people.
You need to study long and hard before talking nonsense, the right of liberty, in this case, hers is being infringed upon. You intentionally ignored that part or what?
Her religious view is protected by the same right, specifically the right of liberty. If she doesn't write any bill dictate her religious beliefs on anybody then she is fully capable of using the right of liberty to deem what she think is correct and represent the people who voted for her using that belief.
What kind of right is to dictate LGBT nonsense on people? Forcing views, agenda upon people like what the bill is doing, is actually violating the principles.
Separation of church and state isn't just with Christian, it's also with any crazy cult. You can't make up gender and "identity" and then force it upon other people.
Go back to school, pal, think a bit, do some research.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 First off, kid. She abstained, that's finished with whatever roles you can loosely interpret based on politics.
If the bill had passed, the first right being restricted is the right of liberty. Liberty of believing in what she believes and the inability to promote that belief. The bill says to "promote" LGBT nonsense, that's the first nonsense, you can't force people to promote something based on nothing.
There's a major difference between discrimination and simply deeming something invalid, kid. LGBT nonsense is fact, you can't just make up gender just because you feel like it.
No science in the world ever proved or studied into what those derogatory are, if a crazy cut himself and then claim that he is only attracted to people who are equally attracted into people who have scars? You would call him what? A "scar" something. Kid,
Moron, her right is the right of religious freedom, to believe whatever she wants to believe, LGBT nonsense have the same right, you can see them screaming it at people's face. But the bill infringe on the liberty of people who don't believe in LGBT nonsense. There is no bill promoting Christian Value.
Here's a clue, kid, you're a moron who has no knowledge of what you're talking about. My advice? Go back to school.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 Great, that's your concern, you have the right to call Christian crazy, they have the right to call LGBT crazy. That's your right of liberty.
What infringe it is the action of using government to promote any of the two. Clear?
Bake a cake thing was ruled in favor of the baker, the Baker sell cake, the gay people ask for gay cake, you can't force that.
If a person ask for gay gasoline, as in maybe gasoline that requires special procedures, they will be refused, too.
Learn the law, kid. And arguments are opinion supported with facts and logic.
That makes my argument valid and your argument trash. Clear?
Go back to school, you already lost.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 Who said that we're winning? We have to keep fighting with morons lile you, otherwise we will be defeated.
There are discrimination, and laws preventing them applies to all, but distinguish between law that protects you and abusing the law to attack people.
Like I said, logic that can't be penetrated. Crazy LGBT nonsense can believe whatever they believe, but they can't force people to promote it.
You can't force a tailor to make you a wedding suit specifically embroidered with gay promoting messaging if he doesn't want to. The same way you can't force people to report gay news just because you're gay. Idiot, get out of the bubble kid.
You think it's okay to be crazy, making up 40 genders based on feeling. I don't, act according to the law, and you're violating it by promoting your opinion using governmental act. Study, kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video is the crap of Prager U, I'm Asian and I'm ashamed. We don't know whether the person in the video is actually Asian, but she doesn't know anything about Asian studying culture.
It's not all but close to all candidates that has Asian roots are not leaders, just followers, they're cramped with knowledge in highschool without developing critical thinking or such.
This video doesn't provide any proof, pretty much like Black Lives Matter. Asians aren't less selected into Harvard or of any school because of their race, otherwise there won't be any Asians left. Only low level students who have Asian roots are crying about this.
I'm Asian and I went to Columbia, origin from Vietnam, went here for College and then stayed here. Anybody who believes that there are racial discrimination against Asian should talk to a qualified Asian.
It's not discrimination based on race, it's discrimination based on characters, personal qualities, which happens to have an entire group of same root people falls in one category, bad.
Think a bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PrimitiveFuturologist_YTC You're just highly delusional, pal. Your sources and quotes don't mean anything because you're quoting the wrong source.
You're misunderstanding the entire conversation, it doesn't matter where a bunch of anthropoids come from, maybe it's Africa, but maybe it could've been Asia, earliest, not only. Learn to read.
What matters is that human civilization as in reasoning, logic, order. Those didn't start in Africa, it started everywhere, earliest was Asia.
Culture has nothing to do with origin of species, and what does origin of species have to do with anything? Life all starts under the ocean? Isn't origin of life cover the origin of species. Idiot. Humans are deemed to be special because of our thoughts, not because we're anthropoids.
If you can't argue about the main point, don't pretend that you are.
1
-
@PrimitiveFuturologist_YTC Wow, you're really dumb, aren't you. Keep rambling on about trivial stuff that you can't even see that they're just trivial stuff.
Hey, idiot. Why the hell does it matter where they come from ? If you're stating that it's because those the owner of the land than you're dead wrong. The land is for whoever took it.
Your entire research, is a useless thing used to trick little kids, stop it pal. It won't work. It doesn't matter where they come from, Africa, Asia, they could be from Atlantis and it would make no difference to the position they're in. But stating that they're from Africa, first of all, doesn't mean anything. Think about it.
And you too be honest, after reading the latest and utterly useless reply, have shown that you're no better than just a 5 year old with an IPad.
Copying anything you could see in an online research without knowing what it means. Using words maybe taken from a Shakespeare work pretending to be more than average. You're pathetic.
If you can't type anything decent, kid. I advise you to go back to school.
Just answer the question, is it more important to know where anthropoids come from, or is it more important to know where ancient civilizations was formed? Idiot.
Oh, and yes, human thoughts made us special, maybe other creatures have some kind language, but none of those creatures are intellectually capable of doing the things we do. So applying relative comparison, yes we are special comparing to them. Get it, kid. It's called math. Go back to school and learn it.
Like I said, here's an ancient Chinese saying for you. If you know say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know.
You don't know anything, pal, try getting a homo erectus quote against that and then it'll be utterly clear. Pathetic!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnypenso9574 Okay, here's another idiot. You're misunderstood the income of students from Asian countries and American students which have Asian roots. 30% higher in domestic students income doesn't prove a thing, moron. If the average is 50 000 than the Asians would be 65000, learn some actual math. It's not adequate to pay Harvard tuitions. You're just ignoring facts, kid. Can you prove that they're discriminating against Asian?
How do you know that there isn't an equality of opportunity, you're just basing on the equality of outcome. Which is totally ridiculous. For example, I'm smarter than you and you can't be the same as me. Doesn't mean that you're discriminated against, it means that you're inadequate, kid.
If you can't prove something, and you have no actual information about it, don't type anymore nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1