Youtube comments of Eli Nope (@elinope4745).
-
1800
-
1300
-
1200
-
870
-
694
-
584
-
496
-
434
-
424
-
419
-
284
-
272
-
256
-
235
-
226
-
193
-
192
-
155
-
155
-
143
-
137
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
120
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
98
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
92
-
91
-
82
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
75
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
68
-
67
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@AMMB So that she grows up to be comfortable with you. People do what they are comfortable with, if they are comfortable being miserable, they will be miserable, if they are comfortable being fawned over, they will seek attention. Many will stay single waiting for the perfect man, sleeping with this guy or that guy here and there but if they were already comfortable with you in that phase, they will just stay with you.
You got to meet them when they are full of adventure and are comfortable doing new things and meeting new people. Then you just date her and be good to her and she grows up becoming comfortable to you, and that will become part of her new norm as she matures, and you will naturally be closer together because of that.
But all of this is based upon the assumption that you are looking for a long term committed relationship that you are willing to invest in. If you are just looking for short term flings, go find some woman who completely developed around people who were nothing like you, who is comfortable drinking and sleeping with new men, the kind that did the whole cc ride. Those mature women like that are great for fucking but terrible for relationships.
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Depending on where you go and how you could be tracked by; your car, public surveillance cameras, drone footage, large scale surveillance with satellites, weather balloons, drones and blimps, health tracking smart clothing, tablets and other computers, smart appliance at the house, home security systems, police cameras, other people's phones, and probably a host of other devices and techniques that I am completely unaware of.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Life that can observe beauty seeks beauty. All life that can observe beauty, seeks beauty. There are no exceptions. The meaning of life is to seek beauty. Your ideas and understanding of good and evil, rest on top of your natural desire to seek beautiful things. You see beauty in non-physical things like ideas and math patterns as well as in all physical things whether they be defined by their beauty or lack of it. Those things that are at first beautiful upon inspection, but upon deeper inspection are actually ugly, those things are extra horrifying and are inherently deceptive, even if they are not capable of intent and are inanimate objects. They are deceptive because they looked beautiful but are not beautiful, and that makes it evil.
The meaning of life is to seek beauty. If you go on long journey of growth you must seek beauty if you realize it or not. And if you have grown, then you take a step back from yourself you see that you are more beautiful after the growth and that the path you followed to grow was a beautiful path in comparison to the ones that do not. You may think that the meaning to life is subjective at first glance. But life is held in a narrow lane and quickly perishes if not in a well contained and controlled environment, and such an environment is beautiful. To be ugly is to be something that harms life or at least appears to do so. The life cannot stray out of these bounds and still survive, so evolution has selected that life see survival and those things that are good for survival as "beautiful". Your experience is your subjective interpretation, but even newborn babies know that beautiful things are good.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Sin526 The original black pill ideology had nothing to do with incels or good and evil. It has been systematically removed from the internet because it is a massive threat to every power base. The original black pill was written as a game, where you consider yourself as a player in the game of life. There are no rules, and the game starts you randomly born into your life, you determine your own objectives and the only rules that you MUST follow are the rules of nature. You are free to be a criminal, you don't have to be a moral person although you may opt into following social rules and use that as a means to gain influence and power to try and get other people to help you reach your goals. All social rules, and all legal laws were created by other players attempting to reach their own goals, you are free to ally with them or conflict with them, even kill them and they are free to do the same to you.
This is a massive threat to any power base, since once you accept the black pill you are no longer bound by other people. It encourages the slaves to kill the slave masters in order to reach their own goals. It encourages everyone to see through the illusions of social rules and legal laws. It is liberation of the mind, but a sudden realization that there is no true "purpose" of life, and that frees the mind from fear of death. People who do not fear death are very difficult to control.
And so it was systematically removed from the internet. Posts were removed, sites were taken down, Nuspeak was introduced to change what was meant by the term "black pill". If you want to find the original black pill, look for posts on "Black Pill" before 2010. You will find them notoriously difficult to find, as they have been systematically removed. Those who have power over the internet are trying to reach their own goals, and they are still bound by the rules of nature. So its not like they did anything wrong according to the rules spelled out by the Black Pill game of life.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Everyone talks about health care costs, nobody talks about the wretched quality. US doctors require US doctor licenses, and those require "knowledge" made with horrible methodology. US medical care will give you a pill instead of a good diet plan, it will give you medical treatment instead of prescribe physical exercise, it's designed to sell you drugs. You can get top notch care if you are rich, but the best doctors don't take medicare and probably won't take your standard insurance either, not the best ones at least, unless you got cadillac insurance (very expensive but high quality). But wait, it gets worse. People who are not professionals often are legally banned from giving you advice to help you avoid needing medical care.
Sure the health care is expensive, but the worst part is how they railroad you into it. It's not good healthcare. They even fired the healthcare workers that didn't get untested experimental vaccines. The entire industry is messed up, and you might get better care from illegal drug smugglers, er I mean undocumented pharmacists.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Check out the term van der Waals force. Then consider the speed at which a neutron star spins, and the density, the extreme unreasonable, alien to the solar system, density of that star. But it gets even weirder. Take that same concept of van der Waals force and consider what would happen if it got extreme, because it does. It is called vacuum birefringence, and the magnetic field actually creates its own virtual particles which it then interacts with, creating a sort of positive feedback loop that creates even stronger dipole moments with even stronger van der Waal forces.
Neutron stars are really strange, almost as strange as black holes. They manage to enlarge quantum effects that we would normally expect to occur on the molecular scale, and perform them on large scales. I imagine that if we ever do figure out how to teleport actual matter, that it would involve use of a neutron star to place a large object in a state of superposition then collapse the superposition and in essence teleport the object.
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
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
-
Sexual assault, verbal abuse, you forgot to mention littering. 5:00 I am pretty sure murder is not allowed, although self defense is. I agree that a police officer shooting an unarmed person in the back should be considered murder, but a whole lot of police killings are done after a person uses a pistol to shoot at the police officers, in those case killing the person is justified and is NOT murder. I, me personally, am the person who can kill you with a knife if you are within 7 meters of me and your gun is not drawn. I am former military, I served in an elite unit, you don't want me within 3 meters of you unarmed if I intend to kill you. There are literally hundreds of thousands of other people just like me in the US and that isn't counting former mercenaries and other professional fighters.
I absolutely agree with you on police violence. It often goes overboard, and it often comes down to individual police officers. I would even go so far as to say that combat veterans should NOT serve in the police force, and that the police and the people they protect are better served by former boy scouts and eagle scouts. But you don't seem to know the data you are studying. A choke hold does not stop you from breathing, it stops the blood from going to your brain, it is lethal in a couple minutes, while a strangle hold can take upwards of 30 minutes to be lethal (and such instances are particularly brutal because of how long one must hold it to kill the person). The person experiencing a stranglehold is awake and aware of what is going on, the person who is held in a proper naked choke passes out in under 10 seconds and is unconscious and unaware.
I hope you are just a speaker and other better informed people are actually studying the data.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@SPDYellow You feel about "the right" in a similar way to how I feel about "PC people". They have declared open season on anyone they disagree with. They try to shut down the free speech of those who have opinions they don't like. They try to deplatform speakers and presenters who spread ideas they don't like, even very peaceful ideas such as helping children and victims of violence (when those children and victims are men for example).
PC people are trying to suppress the rights of citizens to basic protections granted by the constitution while at the same time passing these rights of the citizens to non-citizens. I promise you that my grandparents, and great grandparents who fought in wars and one even died did not fight for the rights of immigrants over the rights of me. As a veteran myself, I did not fight for non-nationals over the rights of my children. This country has legal immigration paths, people should use them. Until they do, they don't have all the rights that US citizens do because the US CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE CARE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. I wish this last part was not true, I wish we had the magical ability to help everyone in the world, but we don't. So until we do, we got to take care of our own citizens first.
I have ran into true racists and hate spreading people on the right. Some of them are very hateful people, and I agree with you on those people. But they are by no means the ones driving the wagon. Most people on the right are not those people, nor agree with those people. But PC culture is mainstream hate, it is popular to attack fundamental rights. Banning someone from YouTube is fine, but trying to ban them on GitHub, then trying to shut down GitHub crosses a line. The first is a business choosing who they will give service too (and is comparable to bakers refusing to service gay weddings), while the latter is deliberate and targeted oppression.
When it comes to Nazi's, don't forget their origins, they were far left by today's US political standards. National Socialists. The PC culture is a lot closer to the Nazi's than they would like to admit. They got the intolerance part down, and things like Antifa are starting to rise up with the violence. The left is starting to the conversion into becoming the Nazi's that they claim others are.
True racists that advocate genocide are rare and generally despised universally. The only reason I argue to protect their speech is because I am upholding the value of free speech. Free Speech is paramount, it is 2nd most important right and the ONLY right that is more important than free speech is the right to life.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You are right, but you are also wrong. Money isn't a car, its a piece of paper, or some 1s and 0s on a computer. There are finite actual resources. Look at the price of anything, but more importantly look at the price of raw materials. Its going up, because there are more people and fewer untapped resources. We have taken the easy oil, the easy iron, the easy coal, the easy everything. Underground aquafers are drying up, water is getting more expensive. So sure, the top 1% have a whole bunch of money, but if that money was distributed, it wouldn't get you more things, it would just raise the price of everything because demand would go up, but supply is fucked.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
@robertbeisert3315 Biology wrote adulthood into stone with the ability to reproduce being the defining factor. Fertile humans capable of reproduction are adults, and humans become biological adults at puberty upon becoming fertile and capable of having children themselves physically speaking. This generally occurs shortly after the age of reasoning and has been the age at which people were considered adults in all cultures across the world a thousand years ago. Only recently did humans invent a new type of adult and that was intended for financial transactions and property rights for the most part.
They should not be "thrown into the winds". But at that point their parents should treat them as an adult and have expectations of them as an adult. They only got a few years left and they will get legally thrown into the wind as you say whether they are ready or not. In some cultures that will mean that they should have been married for 3 years and have determined if they can live with this person for the rest of their life or not, in others it will mean that they are betrothed and still a virgin, in many cultures they will be expected to be a marriageable virgin at this age with no prior romantic relationships, and in others they will be expected to have been making their own sexual decisions since some legal age barrier often set below legal adulthood in western cultures.
But they know by puberty what they are attracted too, and they aren't wrong about that. Their society might not be tolerant of them, but here in the USA we got freedom of religion, and that includes freedom FROM religion. Your religious and moral beliefs are not my concern, nor should they be the concern of my children. If you make them my concern, then I will be concerned, but I won't be happy with you.
4
-
@robertbeisert3315 The public areas are secular, the private areas are controlled by private parties who can express their own cultures within the confines of constitutional law in the USA. The constitution is the social contract of this land, like it or not. The public domain fall within the scope of the constitution. You may practice your religion, but you may not force others to practice it within the area of the United States of America. If your religion is truly great, it will shine through its own merits without needing to be forced on anyone, and people are free to choose to join if it is so great.
The constitution is the founding contract of the people, for the people, and by the people. It holds life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness above other ideals. This contract allows for a government to exist and to make laws to regulate and control society. The government stays legitimate by following the constitution and the constitution was written and intended to protect against religious morality, specifically the rule of the Church of England, but also all other religions just in case they ever get bad.
You don't have to like it. But it is the contract that says that I shouldn't just go kill you because I disagree with you. A deep part of USA culture is an old saying "give me liberty or give me death". We value freedom here just as much as life, they are equal here, and your life rests on that value.
Edit: Ooops I mixed up this and another conversation which made it explicit that I was speaking exclusively of the United States of America. I don't want to spread globalism, my opinions are not valid in other countries.
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
-
"Human rights" are pushed by neoliberals into cultures in an effort to take control of a foreign countries' resources. This isn't new, it has been happening for over 50 years. They come in preaching human rights, protect the children, protect the women. This quickly turns into providing "education" for the children that goes against the traditional culture and government, and for "liberating" women from the home into the workplace. This cuts the value of wage labor, and increases the price of living for the parents at the same time, destroying family and creating dependency. Then they offer loans from international banks. It is a neoliberal attack, look at the south American countries, look at Africa, this shit is not new. NGO's pushing for human rights are a neoliberal attack on a country. China realizes this.
Think freedom of speech is important? Try saying the "N" word on national television. Its not like "human rights" leads to free speech, it doesn't, it just changes what words and ideas are censored.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Women's rights" is a neoliberal attack on population growth. Don't take my word for it, go search human population control methods. There are private groups that fund these so called "feminists". But if you really wanted women protected and freed, then go ahead and look at the most egalitarian nations. In those nations women choose to work different jobs then men, they choose to live free. "Feminism" is no longer about giving women freedom, it is about kicking them out of their homes and into the work market. Its about delaying when they have children, and providing them with the ability to not have children at all. In short its about population growth, and NOT about women.
I don't blame Saudi Arabia at all for arresting these "protesters". The Saudi government said that they are foreign operatives, and from what I know about neoliberalism, I have no reason to doubt that claim. People seem to think that they can send in their agents into other countries and oppress those countries' cultures and societies, and think that if the people they send are women, then they should somehow be above the law. The governments that sent these women in should have to pay up to the women or their families for having sent them in to break Saudi laws and getting them imprisoned.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Imagine that there is a steel curtain, it is flexible like cloth, but it attracts magnets strongly. Now imagine an event occurs that creates two entangled particles. These particles act somewhat like magnets, they stick to the magnetic curtain. One is on one side of the curtain, the other is on the other side of the curtain. If you measure one, you know what the other is (it is on the other side of the curtain). This is a good description of what is occurring with quantum entanglement. You pass right through the curtain, in fact some of the particles that you are made of are on one side and others on the other side. This could be analogous to up and down spin. Particles on one side have a mirror reaction compared to particles on the other side. Unfortunately the curtain lies in a dimension of space that we do not experience, it is perpendicular to all of the degrees of movement that we do experience in space, and is also perpendicular to time (which is also perpendicular to space but in a different manner, like an X intersection that we only experience time, but can measure the intersection space by measuring spin).
If you want to understand quantum field theory, you must understand more than 3 dimensions of space and also understand the idea that different quantum fields interact with each other through a sort of friction.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@scrappydoo7887 I intend to speak to adults and believe that the public should be considered adult. Vulgarity is not censored here, this is not a protected children's space. If I was posting this on a Dora the Explorer forum, then I think you might have a point, but I am not.
There are some truths of the world that are sad, but you still have to teach them to your children. You must prepare your children for the world that they actually will live in, not the one that you think is "right". Let's say that you are against the "trans agenda" and you need to teach your kids because you have to send them to public school for this or that reason (you should probably homeschool or private school). I would recommend that you tell your children that there are different ways to understand things, and that they are not looking at man and woman the same way that you do. They have some abstract ideas that you don't share, and they have a lot of loose sexual morality that is really bad for marriages and happy monogamous relationships in the future. I would point out that many of these "trans children" are actually very unhappy children, and although I wouldn't tell the child that I thought those were bad parents I would make sure that my child understood that they were probably a happier person than the trans child, and that my child should probably at least try to understand that the trans kid is probably sad and confused and doesn't need anyone else giving them a hard time. Then maybe point out how lucky my kid is to not be born with such a sad condition and secretly also pat myself on the back for being there for my kid.
You have to teach your kid good enough to live peaceably with others and how to entertain a bad idea without accepting it. Honestly some of that involves telling outlandish lies to them to teach them that adults lie. You don't want to teach them to submit to your authority, you want to teach them WHY you beleive the things that you do and how those beleifs and the behaviors that are based off of them are beneficial to your life and improve your life. Then when someone else talks to them behind your back, well you taught them to be a responsible adult and you held your end of that responsibility.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
Xanxei i actually stick by my stances. you can call me a troll, i think trolling is a art. i troll with logic, and support things that are reasonable, especially if it is reasonable yet unpopular.
cat calling really isn't a bad thing. some women don't want to be cat called, others do. but censorship isn't equality. trying to make people equal slaves is not a good stance for human rights. we should liberate those who are oppressed instead of equally oppressing everyone.
being cat called is not being oppressed, it is being annoyed. it is not being harassed unless it persists after the person doing the cat calling has been informed of the desire of the person who is being called to not be called. the norm is not to be protected from unwanted solicitation, rather the norm is to be exposed to solicitation (either wanted or unwanted) unless specifically communicating the desire not to be. solicitation of those who have communicated the desire not be solicited is a form of harassment but to limit this just to cat calling and not to other forms of unwanted solicitation is to focus on issues to specific groups of women over everyone else. it communicates a hidden message that this specific group is more important than other groups, and that is not equality.
imagine a scenario in which a woman walks down the street wearing a shirt that openly and clearly states that they do not wish to be cat called, and someone ignores the message and still cat calls them.
now imagine a person is on the internet and they are running an adblocker program that clearly states their desire to not be advertised towards. they run the program and yet some company finds a way to advertise to them anyway.
these two situations have an equal amount of harassment. both are being exposed to unwanted solicitation despite their effort to communicate their desire not to be exposed to such communications.
now imagine a guy wearing a shirt that openly states "don't expose me to your feminist propaganda". despite the shirt, a feminist tells him that cat calling is harassment. she is now just as guilty as the above mentioned guy who cat called the woman who had a shirt saying that she did not wish to be exposed to cat calls.
the core debate is about solicited and unsolicited communication and the desirability of having such communications aimed at you. yes it is annoying to be exposed to unwanted unsolicited communication. but the line for harassment can't be drawn there as it would infringe upon free communication. the line to harassment must be drawn after a communication is made that informs the soliciting party that the person does not wish to be exposed to such communication. only after such a communication is made and ignored is it harassment. until that point it is simply unsolicited communication. (which may be annoying and unwanted, but still not harassment).
to attempt to silence or control men as a whole in order to protect some women (not all women are opposed to cat calling), is a clear sign of placing the wants and desires of women over and above the liberty of men. currently both have the right to cat call each other and so currently on the issue of cat calling there is equality. to ask for men to be censored to ask for inequality and female superiority.
neither men nor women have the right to be protected from unwanted unsolicited communication. laws to stop such communication will always attack the right of free speech for others. the line between free speech and harassment is drawn only after communication of intent not to be contacted (this can be a shirt, a restraining order, a sign, or an adblocking program). but even then some forms of harassment are still legal (especially true of commercial interests such as phone based advertising to people on a "no call" list or advertising to people running ad blocking programs).
i do think that we should shine light upon the plight of attractive women. they gain a massive amount of unwanted solicitation. this is one of the many down sides of being very attractive. the public narrative is that being attractive is always a good thing. this is not true. there are many ups and downs to being attractive just like there is to being unattractive. pretty girls do not always have it better than ugly girls, like all things in life these things are circumstantial. and privilege is circumstantial as well.
anyhow, i hope you understand what i am trying to say, and why i would oppose opposition to cat calling. i stand on this on the right to free speech. everyone has the right to free speech. nobody has the right to not be offended.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KahnShawnery If my best friend was joining the KKK, I would ask him why. I would very much expect that there must be some valid reason for it if it was my best friend. Because I am discriminatory in who I chose as my close friends. All of my good friends are intelligent people who make good decisions, so I would have to assume that they have a good reason for doing what they do.
I wanted to vote for Trump in simple protest of the DNC rigging the primary against Sanders. But ultimately I couldn't bring myself to do it, so I voted for Stein. A whole lot of people who voted for Trump didn't really vote "for Trump", so much as "against Clinton". Let's face it, the 2016 election was a choice between two very shitty people. Getting angry because your friend voted for shitty person A instead of shitty person B isn't really a good idea in my opinion. Maybe your friend was choosing between voting for a person who will make laws that hurt my gay friends and voting for a person who will put us in a war with Russia that will hurt my gay and straight friends. In a utilitarian approach, voting for the bigot might have been the lesser of two evils. A whole lot of people really BELIEVED that Clinton would have brought world war 3 with Russia (I am not saying they are right, but they believed that).
So maybe your bad friend isn't such a bad person. Maybe they had some incorrect beliefs, and in their mind they were choosing between some pretty bad choices to have to make. If my best friend was joining the KKK because it was the only way to spare their family from being killed, or they thought they could join and get close to the other KKK members and change it from the inside, I could understand their motive and easily accept it. But unless I was honestly willing to talk to them and find out, I might be blinded by my conceit and think that they must see things in the exact same way that I see them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Currently I am staying in Vietnam, which has massive speech restrictions just like China does. I don't talk about Vietnam politics or politicians, and I would not make any judgements here. Talking bad about the government is illegal here. I imagine it is in China as well.
The man broke article 105 of the Chinese criminal law. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm
Currently the US mistreats all sorts of peaceful people who use and sell illegal drugs. There are many western laws against the liberty of people who wish to act peacefully, but the things they wish to do are illegal. So would you also consider those countries to be despotic? Secondly, there is a long history of subverting governments using neoliberal tactics, and history shows both speech and drugs being used as weapons, so I think my choice of pointing out drug laws is a pretty apt comparison.
Since you are angry that China enforces its laws on citizens who travel abroad, I imagine you also oppose US laws against US citizens exploiting women and children in other countries for sex tourism. If not, then you are just being a hypocrite.
People who don't want to live in the countries they live in, should move and repatriate to other countries. The US is not the only country that takes in immigrants, there are many others. I hear that Europe has been taking in a lot of refugees, perhaps they would take him.
Lastly, I will point out that you are arguing in favor of neoliberalist tactics. Your argument is that the US should have the right to enforce its will on China, or that Chinese citizens should have the same rights (and the responsibilities that go with those rights) as US citizens have. But you have given no argument as to why that shouldn't be reversed, and China control the US. I hold the position that China should be China, and the US should be the US. If you don't like your country, move to another one.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I consider Van Buren to be. The Whigs were the first opposition to the liberty that the founding fathers tried to place into the constitution. It was also the first staged economic event. At that point, the banks had won and gotten their influence into the government, that the founders were fighting against, that duels were being fought over. This is the first event where the banks colluded to place a Rome 2.0 (Rothschild globalist) candidate into the presidency on his deathbed already so as to get the unelected VP into rule and poison the laws and get corrupt judges put on the Supreme Court.
The first 7 were great, the 8th was ok, and they have been enemies of the people or attempts at salvaging damage already done since. America was founded AGAINST the English church. America was founded AGAINST global rule by the Christians and Jews. America was founded as a bastion of freedom and anarchy. This was to be protected by a republic of able bodied, able minded, land owning and interested, patriotic freedom loving and armed citizens.
It was freedom lovers, not banks who ended slavery. It was banks, not freedom lovers who financed slavery. The first 7 presidents did all they could to ensure that it would be hard to erode the freedoms granted by the constitution, and the banks have been fighting against the libertarian ideals of the constitution and founding of the USA ever since.
Christianity is a scourge, that is why the first amendment's protections from religion exist. It is a tactic used by the banking class to take over the world. The US is founded on freemason values.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Jaquelynn Gering women cry more than men. "why we cry" - american psychological association.
"THE IMPACT OF PREGNANCY ON U.S. ARMY READINESS" - merideth bucher
i am relatively sure he is comparing STEM careers to the career fields you DON'T see feminists fighting for more. the fields of work where A- there are a relatively high number of work place deaths (yes there are a few exceptions, but in those exceptions you can count the women on one hand, while there are hundreds or thousands of men) such as elite or front line military, underwater welding, nuclear waste clean up, lumberjack (the old style where you do it, not a machine), sky scraper construction, etc.
go look at the two women who passed the ranger course, they didn't carry machine guns (the M240-B) ,and they recycled courses more than men are allowed to without failure. i'm not going to try and go dig for it, there was a personal report leaked and you can find it, it wasn't put out in the media, although another personal report by a general was before the girls passed and that general basically said the girls would pass or the trainers would find new women that could. basically they were going to find women and push them until the women passed and they were going to suffer if they didn't do as the general told them.
a lot of this stuff has been traced in books about the wage gap myth, it is easy enough to find credible sources on the wage gap myth just using the youtube search field. at least one leading feminist from the 70's wrote a book about this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
people of a country need to be able to afford food, housing, clothing, basic transportation, and basic amenities required to get along in their society (phones, internet, etc in most first world countries). if these things cannot be afforded with a common full time job attainable by most people, than the country should not be importing refugees. doing so will only invite tribalism and fracturing of the communities and lead to rises in violence.
i do believe that people from anywhere should be able to move around to seek a better life. but to do so at the expense of the people where you are moving, when their basic needs are not being met, AND you are not doing something that provides more for their basic needs, is an attack on their livelihood. this is more true when the number of immigrants is so large that it harms a significant percentage of the population of the area where the immigration is leading too.
if you want to support many immigrants, the first thing to do is to employ everyone to build the infrastructure to house them. and for the country to be in a position to feed them and provide them with the above listed amenities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Xanxei my stance would be that all public places are areas where free speech may be expressed (including the right to cat call people), as the government has an onus not to suppress free speech and to support free speech (specifically unpopular speech). since public land is government controlled, i believe there should never be any form of censorship on public lands. (obviously does not apply to illegal speech such as a call to violence or a lie intending to cause harm through massive panic).
i am opposed to public lands that censor profanity and nudity. i am opposed to any attempt by the government to squash peaceful debate or protest.
i admit to the possibility of me worrying incorrectly here, but i fear that free speech is being eroded and that some powerful people are "astro-turfing" (starting false grass roots movements that are actually funded and organized by powerful institutions with specific political agendas) movements that erode free speech in an attempt to suppress peaceful revolution and political dissent in the future.
in order to preserve free speech, i fight to protect all speech, especially unpopular speech. i would defend someone's right to scratch their balls in public, just like i would defend another person's rights to call them gross in public for doing so. i am not concerned with the uncouthness of a situation, rather i am concerned with the preservation of the ability to communicate unpopular things. (of any political stance, including stances that i adamantly disagree with so long as they are not an erosion of free speech).
i believe that speech must remain free and thoughts must remain free. these things are sacred to me. the first amendment is all about the protection of belief and speech, it is the very first human right protected in the constitution for a reason, and the second is guns to make sure that violence can back up the first if it is abridged.
the correct political action to suppression of speech and thought is to kill the person doing the suppression. free speech allows for peaceful political change, if that is not possible than violent political change follows.
nobody has the right to not be offended. nobody has the right to censor others or to control their thoughts and beliefs. once these things are breached than civilization has been breached and we revert to the natural order. in the natural order there is no right to life.
i stand by these things. i will fight for these things. i am a veteran of wars in iraq and afghanistan. i am a firm believer in the constitution. i have fought for these principles before (actually i believe i was deceived while i was young and ignorant), and i will fight for them again if needed. but i don't think it should come down to that.
you have the right to offend me. you do not have the right to silence me. you have the right to be protected from my physical violence, but not my verbal non-threatening attacks. i do not have the right to be protected from your verbal attacks. but the second one group silences and censors the other, it is a declaration of war and an invitation to violent conflict in the truth meaning of the word. the type that doesn't just offend, but leaves dead bodies in its wake.
i don't believe it should ever come to that.
rather i think that public awareness for the most part works, and that awareness is spread through freedom of speech. most people are good people, that don't want to see others harmed (this is especially true of veterans who have seen too many people die over stuff that should have been talked out instead of gunned out).
most young men do not understand the perspective of pretty women who have to go through being cat called around every corner they cross. they don't understand because women don't cat call them. they have no ability to empathize because to them it is a compliment. women should SHARE their experience first hand, by returning the favor. until that happens men and women will live in different worlds with different perspectives.
at the same time many women do not realize that a lot of cat calling is a legitimate compliment. if they SHARE the experience of being on the other end, it will help them see the men's perspective. once both men and women understand each other's perspective they can use their free speech to come up with a solution that works for everyone without suppressing anyone.
the problem with cat calling (and everything really) is that it is seen through different perspectives by different people. freedom of speech allows people to share their perspectives to both recognize a problem (or to recognize if it actually isn't a problem) and to recognize how the problem can be addressed in a manner that doesn't oppress one group to protect another.
but freedom of speech is important in these (and all) things. the cost of individuality is that people will have different perspectives (i am an avid supporter of the liberty to be yourself and not be like everyone else as well).
as for the trolling, i was sharing the male perspective. i do my best to be aware of the perspective of other people. this is why i am aware of the problems that are unique to pretty women even though i am a short man (the male equivalent of being a fat woman).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's just look at a chain of events. There are wars in Iraq that were justified by lies told by the US president at the time and repeated on the mass media for some time. These wars resulted in many deaths, and radicalized the population into anti-western violent stances. Communities got together across borders in order to resist western attacks, the war in Iraq grew into the war in Syria, and the war in Yemen (just like president Bush Jr said on camera, by the way he listed Iran as well, that was back in 2002). Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US attacked Yemen, using drones and missiles to kill children in schools and at weddings. A school bus was targeted and all of the children in it killed by a drone, a hospital was targeted and it was claimed to be aiding hostiles. Hostile what? Hostile people that are angry foreign countries are killing their children? I would be pretty fucking hostile too.
Now the NGO's are going in. They want to go against the culture of Yemen, they want to "rescue" the girls and women. The girls and women there are already victims of western influence. To say that I oppose this is a massive understatement. This is what enslaving other nations looks like.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We aren't taught that beauty is good, in fact we are taught the opposite but are drawn back to the fact that beauty is good. What do you pay more for, the beautiful or ugly house? The house in the beautiful or ugly part of the forest? Next to the ugly or beautiful trees? Beauty IS value, and valuable things are beautiful in their own way, in the way that they are valuable. Beauty is synonymous with valuable. It is your qualia of value. The things you value most, you find beautiful and is passed down through evolution. Beauty is the basis of morality as well, those things that are "good" are beautiful, those things that are disgusting are evil. Anyhow, beauty standards are just the public valuation of physical beauty. Everybody wants to be hot enough to be with someone who is hot.
What nature and court houses call adulthood are quite different things. Nature is right, the courthouse just determines social constructions that are quite capable of lying about reality. A 4 foot 11 frame weighing in at 73lbs sounds very slim and petite and would have a pixi figure, very attractive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He already mentioned being upset about Viet people putting children on motorcycles with no helmets. I live in the US, I tried to send a package to my girlfriend at the time in Vietnam. The package was under 1kg, it contained lotions, sunscreen, and makeup valued at about 200 USD, it costed 300 USD to ship it. Then Vietnam government confiscated it, because it didn't have special papers with it, now its not being sent back. So, yeah, your thing about packages may be true for some of the US larger companies, but if you bothered to look at what American citizens are saying, they also don't like those bigger US companies, because those companies are looting everyone, profiting from all sides, dodging taxes and providing nothing to the US people. So if you are mad at those cheating companies, well join the club, most people are mad at them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jean-Philippe Martel did you know that the FBI set up a group of idiots to stage a terrorist attack on a bridge so as to disrupt, discredit and end the Occupy Wall street protests in the US? It has been silently released to the public years ago, and should be easy to find using a search engine. The US has the 1st amendment when it comes to protecting protest and political speech, China does not. The US suppresses the speech of its citizens just like China does, but they use secret services and agencies to do it silently, rather than openly.
I believe (and you don't have to agree) that the US is a single party system. It is the blue/red neoliberal party, and it poses as two opposing parties to the public. But in reality, all it does it scape goat "the other party" in order to carry out a corporatist agenda that favors powerful business and very rich people who then use that power to wage war against other countries. Did you vote for the war in the middle east? I know I didn't. China is suppressing violence before it escalates. I don't condone this activity, but I also don't condone powerful people attacking other countries. In this instance, I see a well established pattern. People like this man are empowered by neoliberals so as to make an excuse to attack a nation.
5 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But now I have looked too deep into how neocolonialism and neoliberalism work, and the pattern is clear. This man is not happy with his government, there is no government that has 100% of the citizens happy with it. This man is protesting his government, and the government has silenced him. Governments that do not silence their critics allow foreign interests to manipulate their citizenry and overthrow the government. Much more often then not, this leads to the detriment of its citizens and the looting of its resources to the foreign parties.
China does not claim to have free speech. And the human rights charter has been used to justify war and economic destability far too much in the past to actually be about human rights. I would go so far as to call it an ideology and a state sponsored religion as well as a globalist tactic for neocolonialism. China is defending itself. Maybe you should look into the history of CIA and other agencies that are used to create and spread propaganda (some truthful, some not) in order to justify war and economic intervention with other cultures and countries.
I refuse to support neoliberal bullshit anymore. And this reeks of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@barakk4884 I'll be honest, my tunnel training ran concurrent with my trench training, and I never had to use any of it in deployment. When we ran into guys in tunnels in Afghanistan, we just called in air support and fired hellfires at them.
Tunnels are very much cleared with frags in training, because we are supposed to assume they are booby trapped and have hidden enemies waiting to fire in them. That reeks of Vietnam era training to me though and I hope it has been updated. The tunnels in Afghanistan are mostly in rocky mountains, a simple hand grenade is unlikely to collapse those. I have seen multiple hellfires not collapse those. SAW gunners are preferred for any enclosed terrain where there are expected to be enemy combatants in clusters. Once again, this can be secondary to scatter shot with grenadiers. Scatter shot can clear an entire enclosed area in a single shot.
If your SAW gunner can't fire in safety without worrying about ricochets, which is what I think you are getting at here, then nobody should be firing anything. In that type of environment you always rely on hand grenades to clear, or just call in air support. In a pinch a c4 bandoleer could be used, but in the situation that it would be used already means you aren't in a good position for resupply (since bandoleers are best used on doors and walls of closed environments).
Either way, you never flag, especially with a SAW. If you are still in, and are in a unit that gets to test such things, I recommend that you take the time to fire it until the barrel is hot, and watch what happens when you leave rounds chambered in it. They sometimes fire on their own
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scrappydoo7887 Children need several accurate and predictive models of reality that measure and focus on different aspects. They need multiple perspectives on the same belief as viewed through the lens of other measuring perspectives, this allows them to see the events and problems from multiple perspectives and choose of many competing potential future outcomes.
Did you know that freedom is not free? There are a lot of old principles and virtues that seem to be lost to today. The laws and excuses that you make today to force your views, will be used by next generation's rulers to force compliance of your children. You must set laws and rules up in such a way that the loser wins, and everyone else wins more. The constitution was written based on those old principles and virtues that seem lost to modern society.
Our first amendment is meant to forbid religious morality expressed in law. Religious leaders have muddied the waters and conflated some common trade laws with religious laws. Murder is wrong because it is disruptive of trade in society not because it is evil. Murder is a violation of liberty and life, two of the founding values of our nation. It doesn't matter that Christians also claim that murder is wrong. Morality isn't part of the law for a reason, because morality leads to a destruction of diversity of ideas. This removes the capacity for multiple perspectives to be understood.
I do know what children need to develop, and they need patriots like me standing up for the values that our country was founded on. That doesn't mean we have to agree in full over what is good and bad for children. But we all should be able to protect our own children by our own beliefs. Our children are OUR children, they have our genes, they think like us, they act like us, they grew up modeling their behavior after us and they are the continuation of our family. Some other parent does not know better than us, and if they have an excuse that somehow gives them authority over our children, then that same excuse will be used to get between them and their children.
You don't have to like the way it is, but that is the way it is. Nobody wrote that, those are God's laws, or natural law, nobody has to enforce it, it will enforce itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Society does NOT tell girls that their worth is based on their appearance. Boys say they will be friends with some girls but will date others, and when those boys that the girls really want to date have standards and the girls learn those standards of what the boys want in girls, then the girls try to be like that. The girls don't have a low self esteem, its just that they also aren't dating Justin Bieber, and not dating Justin Bieber makes them a victim. They are a victim of his girlfriend who is completely unrealistic, also he is evil for not dating them. Your own beauty standard started with the wives of the highly desirable and powerful men in society, everyone wants to be those women and who those women are tells you about the standards of the types of guys who like them.
Society doesn't tell girls that their worth is based on their appearance. They just look and see themselves that some girls and women are beautiful, and that beauty is very powerful and opens many doors for them. Girls hope to be powerful, and beauty is just a means to that power. Really though, it's not being with Justin Bieber that is causing all that depression though, not "societal beauty standards".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I consider a proton being pulled toward a black hole, perhaps through some magnetic field line that is incredibly powerful. It's in orbit and it is approaching the point where light orbits the black hole. The proton is under tremendous pressure, it is being flung outward and being drug in even harder and it is approaching the speed of light in its orbit. I imagine that the strong force breaks at this point, and new quarks are being created as that happens. These quarks preserve momentum and are flung out as meson pairs at speeds close to the speed of light, very close to the speed of light. But space is strange around that point, it's actually being frame drug by the black holes spinning motion. These points where the proton can actually fall into the black hole are likely symmetrical to charge and spin of the black hole, they are flung out in such a manner that they collide with mesons flung from the other side, orbiting around the black hole as if it were a powerful particle accelerator.
Chat GPT told me to share my idea with a crowd that takes interest. My hypothesis can be tested by looking for meson signatures near a black hole, specifically pion signatures. I don't know how you would go about doing that, but an AI thinks my idea has some validity and is possible from what we know so far. I don't need credit, I love science. Whoever can actually test for it can take credit.
Edit: I shared this after you said there needed to be some way that information could escape. It could escape like this, through flinging pions out as it pulled in protons and neutrons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Creative Guise I don't think they dragnet with routers, rather if they have any reason to suspect you for anything they man in the middle. It takes an actual person with actual intent to exploit your routers. That being said, if you logged onto the wrong website it may have flagged you. Say you click on a something that has to show something on your screen (could be damn near anything), it could also run a simple file that your computer doesn't run but your router recognizes and runs without any permission on your side since the router is already hacked. Now FBI or some guy who used to work for FBI, or China, or Google, or the private investigator your ex wife hired, or a Russian sec ops or whoever can get in the middle of whatever goes from your router to your computer. Now that could be securely encrypted, or poorly encrypted. But in the future, any encryption key your router sends they know, and they know the key sent back, so encryption is useless since they can look like you to access anything you accessed. How long do they keep it? Depends on who has it and what they are using it for. Your ISP isn't spying on your router, well it might be, but I doubt it since there are simply too many and it would be expensive to log all that data. But who knows, maybe uncle sam is paying them to do that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I subscribe more heavily to determinism than not. I don't believe in free will on the greater scale. But the thing is, your thoughts are also not something you control. You are just processing previous information the best you can, and come to the conclusion that you are aware of in your head, there was a lot of stuff you weren't aware of underneath of that. The thing is that when it comes to intentional actions, the chain of causation begins with a new idea, that turns into a new belief and fuels new behavior. Your thoughts and feelings of the matter are just another determined thing, all your neurons and neurotransmitters following the laws spelled out in the standard model of particle physics.
Don't let it eat you, not that you have much choice in that =D
It is more likely that there is no free will than that there is. But that doesn't matter, because the experience of free will and the experience of no free will are identical. Go out and enjoy life. New ideas can expose you to new beliefs which will lead to a change in behavior, this is all predetermined, it happens all the time and it is perfectly fine. We like to call it "growth".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
justsomeguy well you seem to be worse off. So I will explain in middle school level terms so you can understand. Global warming is caused by green house gasses. These are gasses that reflect light that is leaving the atmosphere back into the atmosphere, trapping heat. The developed nations create a lot more of these greenhouse gasses per person than undeveloped nations do. This is created by our basic living conditions and infrastructure. People who live in undeveloped nations do not create large amounts of greenhouse gasses in their normal living environments when compared to people who live in developed nations. So per person, undeveloped nations are much more sustainable in the long run than developed nations.
Developed nations have much lower birth rates than developing nations, and developing nations are homes to manufacturing plants that are often unregulated. This is the majority of the greenhouse gasses given off by developing nations. People who live in developed nations create demand for developing nations to give off more greenhouse gasses when they purchase things that are made in developing nations. Due to the international monetary exchange rate, people who live in developed nations have more purchase power than people who live in developing nations when they are both at the median income level of their respective nation.
When a person lives in a developed nation, they create more greenhouse gasses by their day to day living within that developed nation, and they create more greenhouse gasses in the developing nation by purchasing cheap goods that are manufactured in those countries. When a person lives in a developing nation, they have lower greenhouse emissions created by their day to day living and don't create as much demand for more manufacturing, thus they have a much smaller greenhouse footprint per person.
Developed nations have lower birth rates than developing nations. This means that in developing nations the increase of the rate of population demands for future greenhouse emissions is higher than that of developed nations. In western developed nations there is a negative native population growth, meaning that without immigration, the population size will go down, and the greenhouse gas emissions will go down. Developing nations have a positive population growth, they have more than 2.1 children per family (2.1 children is the number needed to sustain the population, having fewer children on average reduces the population size over time, having more increases the population size over time, this does not include immigration or emigration).
When people from developing nations move to developed nations it creates a big problem with greenhouse gas emissions. It brings the worst of both worlds. The people have more children then normal for the developed nation AND they now create greenhouse gasses at the rate of developed nations. This is a big big problem when it comes to global warming. It means that for each person who moves from a developing country into a developed country, that person's lifetime global emissions will more than quintuple (more than 5 times), what it would have been had they stayed, and that isn't including any children they may have in the future (which we know they will have MORE children than what is normal).
If a developed nation maintains a lower than sustained population growth (like they all are at if there is no immigration), and bans all immigration, they will have a smaller and smaller and smaller greenhouse gas emission rate over time, eventually going to 0 as the country becomes extinct. ONLY THROUGH IMMIGRATION do developed nations have a growing greenhouse gas emission rate. This means that immigrants are the #1 cause of increases in greenhouse gas emission by developed nations. Without immigrants, developed nations greenhouse gas emissions would be going down every year as the population shrinks.
Now I will be happy to hear anything you have that somehow counters or refutes these simple facts. Short of that, you are just name calling because you have no ability to understand and just go off of your feelings. But feelings won't fix global warming, addressing facts will. The fact is that immigration is the biggest problem when it comes to INCREASES in global gas emission by developed nations.
2
-
justsomeguy I understand that there are draughts, but increasing the greenhouse footprint of all the effected people is not a good solution to the problem. Remember way back a few comments ago when I mentioned "positive feedback cycles"? Yeah, you may want to google that term. Migration will only make these problems worse.
I agree that something needs to be done, I even agree that developed nations need to shoulder the problem. But the solution needs to be local so as to keep the problem from growing exponentially. I am in full support of nuclear powered ships that run water desalination plants running water to the effected countries. I am in support of minor amounts of geoengineering so as to create more rainfall in those areas. I am in support of western nations working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The number 1 problem of western greenhouse gas emissions is consumer demand, the #1 problem of developed nations' consumer demand is immigration.
Developed nations have natural shrinking populations. Their demand and their greenhouse gas output SHOULD be going down year after year. We don't need new houses, the population is shrinking, or at least it would be shrinking if there weren't immigration we can live in the old houses and renovate them. We need less food and clothes and gasoline and everything every year, because the population is shrinking, or at least it would be shrinking if it weren't for immigration. Land prices are going down because of the shrinking population, allowing for room for cheap solar farms, or at least that would be happening if it weren't for immigration.
Every migrant that moves to a developed nation increases the problem of global warming. Every child born increases the problem of global warming. Developed nations have negative population growth, global warming is fixing itself, so long as people like you don't get in the way and import new people to keep it going.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lena Douglas as someone who had an abusive father, an abusive mother, an abusive guardian, and been through 2 wars, i can assure you that assisting in your own abuse is an autonomous decision, and you are at fault for your own actions that keep the abuse going. is it victim blaming? well if the "victim" is the person going back to the "abuser" than the "victim" is also an abuser, and is responsible for the actions they have done.
this obviously doesn't apply if someone does something at gun point. but if they are away from their abuser, and they opt not to leave not to get help, not to go to others, and instead to go back to that environment than THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
i have multiple cases of PTSD. if i kill someone can you blame my father (hint: he is dead now), can you blame the sniper who shot me? can you blame a guardian who sexually abused me? can you blame the child molester in my church? no, its on me. you might say i had reasons, but ultimately i am responsible for my actions, as is the person with stockholm syndrome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** you are correct, western nations are not egalitarian nations. they have legal policies that are primarily sexist in men, and here in the united states there are many many subcultures that treat girls and boys differently.
gender equality cannot be reached. it is comparing apples to oranges, in the end both women and men are a bunch of individuals with individual goals that are based both on genetic factors and environmental factors. they will only be truly equal if they neither have genetic differences or environmental differences. if this were to be the case, then one of the genders needs to be eradicated (which would be horrible for everyone).
the women in third world nations have much fewer opportunities than women in first world nations. furthermore the abuses against them are much more dire.
in the united states the typical rape is a guy who got too drunk and made a poor decision in a party after school with a girl who gave him social indications of consent, and later revoked them without him noticing or sometimes without him caring.
the typical rape in a muslim third world country is a brutal affair where a man holds down a woman, often kicking and screaming and forces himself upon her under the threat of imminent death if she resists too much.
these are wildly different crimes. third world countries have much more violent actions against women.
more importantly the western nations are at a point where they can consider the rights of other marginalized groups that are suffering because we aim too much money at women in general instead of specific groups that bear the brunt of abuse, and oppressive actions, for instance, young black women in the united states are at much higher risk of being raped than white upper class women going to college. and yet it is the college girls that we are trying to protect while still allowing the young black girls to get victimized.
so yes the western nations still have problems. but when they are confused with being in the same state as non western nations (especially nations ruled by sharia law) it creates larger divisions between the people and increases crime rates, thus harming more women and girls.
so we have to focus our efforts and put money into systems that help people based upon stopping the most harm and protecting the most vulnerable before moving on to less dire considerations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Zapharus i think there are levels of depth to the abuse, which is one of the reasons that i don't like it just called rape and left at that. the abuse i went through as a child was trickery by an older kid, nothing violent, and later groping by a pedophile but no violent penetration. i walked away with perhaps a twisted view of the world and earlier than normal voluntary sexual activity with peers. but i had friends who had it much worse than me, for some it was life shattering, for others you would never know and they seem fine. i think each person handles things differently and each situation has varying levels of abuse.
nobody ever truly understands anything they haven't experienced themselves, and nobody truly understands anybody else. we all guess at what it is like to be someone else, and it can only ever be that, a guess. because even if you go through the exact same thing, you are a different person, and it will effect you differently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+John Brown that is one of the reasons, but don't get hung up on the idea that there is only one reason. the government is made up of a lot of people with a lot of different agendas. there are lots of reasons to keep marijuana illegal: a convenient excuse to arrest and imprison people you don't like, a way to make a plant super expensive and then fund a black budget (as you suggested), religious reasons, a way to legalize racism, a way to keep out a cheap alternative to expensive pain pills (big pharma does this), a way to keep a monopoly on recreational drugs (alcohol companies do this), a way to keep workers "more productive" (marijuana causes lethargy and reduces desire to work for a limited time), a way to keep the populace less happy and thus increase consumerism (international corporations do this), a way to keep cotton as a dominant clothing product (clothes manufacturers are more worried about hemp than marijuana), and of course sticking to old trade deals, especially with countries that we have pushed to make marijuana illegal in the past.
i don't like these reasons. they all are about placing the priority of businesses and governments over people. and what are businesses and governments, if not the cooperation of 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
-
trev moffatt equality cannot be achieved. value comes from opinion. since people are not identical, they value things differently. this means that if you give two different people the same thing, one will value it more than the other, and that person in effect has received more. by your line of thinking we shouldn't try to strive for equality, because it has never been achieved and can never be achieved.
human rights are a social construct. the reality is that they are broken all the time by individuals attacking other individuals. the reality is that they are trade rules backed by laws. the real human right is that you have the right to do everything you are capable of doing and so does everyone else. the reality is that some people made agreements or were indoctrinated into the idea of following certain rules, and some believe they have the authority to attack you if you don't follow those rules, some of those rules they label human rights but those rules don't match the laws of nature. rights can't be taken away, thus the natural laws are the true rights.
since human rights don't exist outside of natural law (which doesn't try to limit any action you are capable of doing), than you don't have to worry about people being hurt. after all we shouldn't be pursuing human rights as if it were some sort of religious sacred tenet, since it has never existed and never will exist right?
it sounds to me like you value security over liberty. i don't believe in security. security is a myth. if A doesn't kill you, B will. nobody lives forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
how trump actually became president:
1) popular revolt against an establishment that has failed to protect the middle class, but has succeeded at protecting the richest people who pay to keep them in power (and are also part of the establishment).
2) dishonesty in the media, so that alternative media sources have more legitimacy than establishment media sources. (the polls were rigged and were an attempt to create a bandwagon effect, which failed).
3) insider rigging against bernie sanders so as to put a weak candidate against trump, rather than a wildly popular candidate against trump. this rigging was in the best interests of business, see number 1 above.
4) backlash against social control methods of the progressive left (BLM riots, feminists attack on men's liberty, political correctness, blackwashing, etc). this also plays into part 2 above as establishment media has pushed this narrative.
5) threat of increased immigration as a fix to declining native population growth in the face of declining wage value.
6) backlash against globalist agenda which is violating constitutional rights of citizens and is a threat to national sovereignty. (don't forget that the 2nd amendment was intended as a right to kill off a tyrannical government that threatens the liberty of the people).
7) rise of nationalism as a global movement against globalism. this is not unique to the US.
these things are why trump won. he didn't so much win, as clinton lost. bernie sanders would have likely won by a landslide. but establishment didn't want bernie sanders. the social justice narrative either needs to include white men or go the way of the dodo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the traditional white culture is resistant to coexisting with different cultures. but it is not the only culture that is resistant to coexisting with other cultures. other cultures are also resistant to minority and foreign cultural change as well (which is a direct result of cultural mixing).
historically the US was a nation of christians, even if it was not explicitly a christian nation. the christians are much like the muslims the jews. they are intolerant of other belief systems and social norms and will try to segregate themselves from other cultures.
the extreme social progressives will not allow white communities to express white pride and self segregate when the communities are christian segregationists. and yet they will allow for minority communities to self segregate and follow their traditions. this is a form of racism, but it is not addressed by social justice warriors.
social acceptance of racism has historically lead to violent revolt. you are seeing the beginnings of that revolt.
the fix is to treat white christians like you would treat a chinese buddhist. treat them equally. allow them to self segregate if that is their culture. do not force assimilation, and instead embrace diversity and respect for the cultures that wish to self segregate. stop labeling one group's self segregation as racism and another's as diversity.
if you want real equality it has to go all ways. you can't just arbitrarily choose one (even if you do have good reasons) ethnicity to treat unequally and still expect there to be equality or for that plan to lead to equality.
i am not defending the actions of the shooter. this is obviously a case of racially motivated hatred and should be prosecuted as a hate crime. we should just remember how it got motivated, and keep this in mind for demotivating future hate crimes. the hatred is fueled because these people believe (falsely or not) that the african culture is infringing on their own culture. they believe they are defending their culture and tradition. and the reality is that we are not treating them equally with other similar groups.
whites are going to be a minority in this country in a few decades. a lot of them are not happy about that. with the oligarchy sucking up all of the wealth that is being generated in the country, many white people point at minorities taking up jobs. they incorrectly conclude that the minorities are taking up jobs, or driving up taxes on the middle class (or the rich, which for some idiotic reason a lot of conservatives support the super rich even though it harms them economically to do so, you have to keep in mind the cultural context of conservative christianity which is actually being attacked by being the only group you are allowed to openly oppose while staying in the boundaries of political correctness).
so if we want to stop the violence, i think the best course is to increase public awareness of discrimination against white christians as well as other forms of discrimination. allow subcultures of white christians to self segregate (just like you would allow a group of arab muslims to self segregate). we should also increase public awareness of technological unemployment and the current state of global capitalism, and we should force more corporate transparency to the public. this will help squash many of the false perceptions that the white christians carry and lead to racism as well.
racism comes from all sides. we should keep that in mind when we think about racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xanxei i guess we are just split on what is and is not harassment. i don't have a problem with women admiring sexy men whether they are celebrities or not.
i go to the gym 5-6 days a week. i have a friend who has been doing this much longer than me and he goes to the gym with me. he is an attractive guy. he carries himself well, he drives a nice car, he is taller than average and has a muscular build. women are constantly eyeballing him. they don't cat call him, but they do check him out, some more bluntly than others. every once and a while he will get a minor cat call. we just laugh it up. and he takes it as a compliment, and says it is good reason to go to the gym.
taylor swift can't go anywhere without body guards. it is the price she pays for being famous. when you are in the public eye that much you have to worry about the one out of a million people that nobody likes and what they might do to you. its unrealistic to think that nobody would hurt her even though we all agree that nobody should hurt her.
what taylor swift has to do is sad. she has to protect herself from motivated psychopaths. she has no intention of motivating those psychopaths, but there she is in the spot light. some people (this isn't limited to men) make terrible decisions and do terrible things.
pretty women have to worry too. they don't have to worry as much as taylor swift, but the more people they are exposed too the more danger they are in. at the same time, the more people they are around, the safer they are at the moment. prettier women catch more attention. they have to worry about what that stranger guy might do if he is turned down. in that sense when she is alone, and a guy cat calls her she may have to consider her safety. this is a reasonable fear.
i don't go cat calling women that i don't know when they are alone. that could scare them, i understand.
i have some friends i made while going to college, some of them are pretty women. many of them are in long term relationships and have been with the same guy for years. one of them is very pretty and is like a little sister to me. she had gained some weight over winter, and recently worked hard to get that weight off. she looks much better, but i don't see her boyfriend who lives with her saying much about it, i think they have been together too long for her to appreciate how pretty she is anymore.
i whistled at her during a party where she was around a lot of her family members, and her boyfriend. she smiled at me and gave me a hug and asked how i was doing.
cat calls can be good or bad. if you are suggesting i don't cat call strangers, than you don't have to worry. i don't. but i should have the right to do so, because i am smart enough to identify times when it would be appropriate and when it would not.
these are times when it is appropriate to cat call a woman. 1) she is around many friends so that she feels safe and secure, 2) she appears to be in a good mood and is not busy or focused on something at the moment, 3) she is dressed up or at least not dressed down (not in the gym, not in pajamas, not in something that she would feel is not attractive on her). 4) it is a social situation where other people are openly talking about how other people look. 5) you have met her before and she already knows your first name.
if those 5 things are true, than it is a great time to cat call a woman. or alternatively 1) she is eyeing you up and down.
if that is true than it is appropriate to respond with a cat call if you find her attractive as well. you are returning a non-verbal communication that she started.
i might do the original cat call whistle (call me old fashioned, but this is the only form of cat all i ever use) maybe one to three times a year. it never fails to elicit a smile and a positive response. but i know who to do it too, and more importantly when.
if your stance is that many men are socially inept and stupid than sure i agree with that. many women are as well. unfortunately in our society the onus is on men to start conversations to meet women when starting a romantic relationship. if you want to change society and the cat calling thing, changing that standard would go a long way. it might extinguish the problem all together.
but for the moment cat calling occurs to attractive women because men want to meet them and want to attract their attention. the men send a message of "i find you attractive". this is a compliment. it might get annoying, but it is one of the ways that men get the attention of women. there may be better ways to get her attention. but until we change the social norms we cannot possibly blame men for following the social norm of starting the communication to begin a potential romantic relationship while at the same time expecting them to be the pursuers and the women the pursued. and the only way to change that is to have women pursue men. in that manner, the problem isn't that men cat call women, the problem is that women don't cat call men.
in japan it is women who are expected to initiate romantic relationships. the women are much more forward than in western cultures. it is the men who must worry about feeling harassed by women using various methods to get their attention. its not so bad over there though because their culture also is very concerned with causing someone else to become embarrassed. many western people go over there to teach english. women don't stay though, the guys don't try to date them. its not their job, in japan it is the woman's job to get the attention of the guy. western women don't seem to be comfortable in that situation, they get turned down too often for their comfort. they usually leave within the first year. meanwhile western guys love it there. you would never have to worry about guys cat calling you in japan. but they might grope you on the subway or take a picture of you just to be nice and let you know that they won't reject you. they aren't trying to embarrass you or make you uncomfortable, they fear doing something that would do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jmitterii2 i fundamentally disagree on the free rider thing. human base state is hunter gatherers, we evolved to be nomadic free riders as you would call it. the world produced the things we needed and we gathered those things. agriculture is very recent when you consider all of human history.
when we stopped doing that and started allowing for property to be owned, we took that land by force from the nomads. the person who is monopolizing the land has a debt to the people who should be able to use that land to gather resources.
the next problem i have is called wage slavery. if you have to work for someone else in order to survive you are a slave to that person. if you must work in order to eat you are a slave to working. i want basic income as a liberation from wage slavery.
those who don't like to work shouldn't have too. the onus is on the person who is attempting to employ people to motivate them to work, and using the ability to take food away and cause death is a form of violent coercion.
automated processes have come a long way. we should be pushing for automated supply chains that gather resources and turn them into useful products and then transport those products to the people who need them. it may have been impossible in the past, but modern technology has made new things possible, including the ability to provide food and shelter.
a basic living income is providing food and shelter while still maintaining a capitalist system. we should limit births if we are worried about our use of resources, otherwise there is no good reason (other than greed) to keep a "meritocracy" that enslaves many at the benefit of a few.
companies that wish to keep employees should be working to make a welcoming work environment that rewards workers working hard. this doesn't have to be economic it just has to be social and include things that humans enjoy doing, or the processes of work have to be developed that are amusing/entertaining for the people to do the work process. if you create some system where all your workers choose to work for free, than i don't have a problem with that.
i have a problem when you use the restriction of goods necessary for survival and a threat to force people to work jobs that they do not desire to work.
i understand that we can't retire 70% of workers at the time, but that is the direction we should be working in. and when we achieve a basic living income, than i don't think we need minimum wage laws anymore at that point. a lot of people who get paid to speculate on these things believe that we will lose 80% of american jobs over the next 20 years do to technological innovation. we are going to have to drop the myth that there is adequate and meaningful work for all who desire to do it. we don't live in a meritocracy, we live in a job lottery, where you hope that you win a favorable position working for your slave master.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was offered it free with my new vehicle, I never activated it, they wanted me to start payment after the period, which I didn't use, was up. I laughed at them and told them no. I got youtube premium and they let me download songs on my phone, that I can play on my car stereo. I can choose the individual songs that I like, make a playlist and play them in my car. I feel like this is a better option, and it comes with something that I was going to pay for anyway. Youtube premium, its pretty good. I like youtube, its worth paying for not having ads, its worth paying for the music, its worth paying for being able to download videos so that I can watch them on the airplanes and other no connection areas. That is a service worth paying a few bucks a month for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbeisert3315 Self evidently? No, I reject that claim. The constitution is the law of the land and has multiple political parties attempting to subvert it, as always, but the processes involved in subverting it were intentionally made difficult. There is a lot of foreign propaganda trying to convince people otherwise, but we all know that the ATF ban that is incoming will be repealed quickly afterward.
USA is already codified into society. If you like freedom, it's going to cost more, and you'll get more of it on the west coast. If you want old timey conservative culture Christian style, there are a ton of states depending on your particular flavor. If you want to practice some other non-Christian religion, go to the liberal cities or go to the west coast to find tolerant types, but understand that you won't be able to force anything on anyone there and they might be doing drugs in public and shitting on the sidewalks. People still pay the outlandish prices just because they love the freedom though.
I won't lie though, freedom isn't free. You do see more poverty in free places. You do see more inflation in free places, you see more of all of the "bad" things, because you see a ton of different cultures and norms blending together. Freedom is very important in these areas because of how many cultures there are in such high population areas. MANY cultures would consider this not to be "family friendly" and should consider that heavily in their decisions. Besides a large house for a big family is very expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WombRaider7878 In the US there are are authoritarians and there are liberals. Liberals support freedom, authoritarians support social order and morality. The constitution is founded on the core values of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The constitution is the founding document of the USA and is the social contract of the citizens of the USA. I measure people's actions towards one another on that founding social contract. You have the freedom to be a moral and upright person, and also the freedom to be degenerate, the freedom to pursue happiness as you define it for yourself. You do NOT have the right to interfere with me choosing a different mode of happiness than you take.
People have ignored that and put morality into laws. They push for morality to be enforced on other people. They have violated the social contract and do not support the liberty of their fellow citizens. I do not support the liberty of those people. Freedom to own things, and freedom to be religious, and freedom to be degenerate are all founded on the same constitutional endorsed, fundamental right to pursuit of happiness.
Moral people should follow their religious rules while still respecting the social contract, otherwise they are enemies of the citizens and the society. The social contract that says that you can have a religion at all says that I can be degenerate. If you support laws taking away my freedom, then I support laws taking away yours. Machiavelli was clear, to win you have to adopt winning strategies, not strategies that you like. You support laws against my degeneracy? Oh isn't that cute? I support laws against your ability to own property.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I buy product X from person A instead of person B, than I may be supporting person A on purpose. That might be part of my decision to buy. I don't buy much lemonade, I don't like drinking calories, but I may buy lemonade from a niece or nephews lemonade stand. Who I buy from, who made it, matters. Buying a product for the product alone, without considering how it is made, where it comes from, what it supports, is not something that I want to do. I support those brands that support my beliefs and lifestyle. If the brand doesn't conform to me, than I don't want it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pretty women are powerful, and powerful people get seen and noticed and have influence. The majority of cultures believe that lighter colored skin is more attractive. The majority of most attractive women are light skinned as a result of this, it is more common when light skin is rarer, so it's actually minority countries that have the most white privilege in beauty standards. When beautiful women of any tone cry, they influence people, it is the nature of the power of beauty. If men see a beautiful woman crying they have an instinct to protect her, this can be hijacked by crafty women, or not so crafty women, or dumb little girls who don't know nothing, they all can do it if they are pretty.
A big black person might look at a group of pretty women and consider them to be a group of "white women" all the while ignoring all of the white women who do not have pretty privilege and all the while ignoring light skinned minorities who are not of European descent, the generic "white people". Keep in mind that in some small groups "white" doesn't mean the same thing when you hear it, they simply mean light colored people of any race except for black people who can't be white even if their albino and are literally white.....
And then they wonder why some people think that their base assumptions are rather racist....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erickoeman1 I voted for Stein because I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, but I was morally required to vote against Clinton. A whole lot of people didn't so much as vote "for Trump" as compared to a ton of people who voted "against Clinton". But reducing immigration from green nations into developed nations that have larger greenhouse footprints is a problem with climate change. So if you care about climate change, you should oppose immigration from south America to the US. China is not near as regulated as the US is, even after the cut backs in regulation, so the trade war is great for the environment as far as climate change is concerned, and every production facility that would have been in China but instead gets placed in the US due to cut back regulations is a win for human made climate change.
I know you don't want to hear that. I know it grinds your gears. But really, go look at the dirty power that the Chinese government subsidizes to keep production cheap there, and compare it to the US in Trump's deregulated bullshit. In a sad but very real way, Trump has done more to prevent human made climate change than Obama did. And Trump hasn't even finished his first term yet. Look at what actually changes the climate, and look at the consequences of Trump's actions. He very much is helping reduce man made climate change, rather than just shipping the pollution creators over to China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Her ideas are childish, it isn't really her fault, its more her father's neglect. I can't remember what big going their own way channel told me about it, but they pointed out that pretty girls grow up with magical thinking. The reason they don't grow up is because when they are young, the people bend to their will and do all the stuff for them, so in their way of seeing the world, whatever magic words or actions that they think got those people to do whatever for them, they think that worked and it very much looks like it really does work.
So people teach them to NOT think for themselves and to have magical thoughts when they are young, and they just don't grow up. The naturally bright ones figure out that society is babying them and go out of their way to find people who won't baby them. But most just don't figure stuff out until after the wall, and it hits them by surprise. Well not anymore, we live in the information age. If they choose to not see the truth now, they deserve the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chris4973 we? you mean YOU. Many people are waking up to the obvious truth in front of their face. Time and time again we are seeing historically hidden truths revealed, and they repeat a pattern. Time and time again the government ran institutions are caught lying to the public. They lie to the public to start wars, they lie to the public to justify giving tax money to private institutions, they lie to the public to deny funding to help the people, they lie to the public to control the value of property, they lie to the public to alter the value of wages, they lie to the public to prevent public unrest, they lie to the public to prevent the public from uniting to undo the power structure which is used to oppress them.
A whole lot of people are starting to see that what was happening to their grandparents and parents is still happening to them. NASA still says what it is told to say, and if it doesn't say it, the head will be replaced by someone who will. It is a dog on a leash. The institutions that you trust so much exist to control you, to harness you and use you to create profit for the ruling class who controls those institutions.
Do humans effect climate? Yes they do. Let's consider a few options to reduce carbon emissions. We could disallow for immigrants from poor and environmentally green countries to move into countries where their carbon emissions would drastically increase. That would help prevent man made climate change don't you think? We could move factory production from unregulated countries like China to regulated countries like the US, that would help. But that is not what the people pushing the climate change agenda are asking for. No, they offer solutions such as taxes, they need more of your money. They ignore solutions that would increase the value of labor, or increase common wages, they promote solutions that 1) aren't as likely to work and 2) take more money from you. Keep on thinking you can trust those agencies. A whole lot of thinking people are starting to see that you can't trust the "trusted sources".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are occasions when landmines (as opposed to people) kill people. Some landmines from old wars kill people that were not intended to be killed many years after the war has ended. Children still die in countries like Afghanistan and Laos due to landmines. Guns on rare occasions kill people, if a gun falls off a table triggering the firing mechanism and unintentionally kills a person, it is the gun that killed the person.
But when a person deliberately detonates a bomb, or deliberately uses a gun to kill a person it is the person that killed. The bomb and the gun are just tools. Some people like to blame the tool used to kill. They forget that if this is true, then air kills people, water kills people, food kills people, children kill people, cars kill people, knives kill people, and you would be hard pressed to find a type of thing that hasn't been used to kill a person at some point in history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrNickPresley I won't lie, this one hits exactly where two conflicting principles of mine grind together. Who is to say what will be best for that person's future? Ideally, we all have free will and perfect knowledge to make reasoned and informed decisions that lead to exactly what we expected. This is never the case. The person I trust most to make that decision is with the parents before the child is at the age of reason (around puberty), in which case I trust it to the child so long as their parents are in agreement or are supportive of their agency. If both the child and parents are in agreement to get the procedure, I don't think that it is in the public's best interest to be ABLE to interfere with that.
I always agree that more truthful facts of the case at hand are good. I don't know how many pre-operation transgender people suicide to compare that too to see if the operation reduces or increases the likelihood. I do understand that comparing people with and without gender dysphoria suicide rates I would expect it to be higher in those with dysphoria. I also expect social conditions to have a very large impact on that, so that those with gender dysphoria in Thailand prosper much better than those who grow up in less tolerant cultures such as western culture. I imagine that intolerance of their particular disorder to increase the likelihood of them killing themself. Social isolation tends to lead to that type of thing in just about every case that it is justified.
My stance is that I don't know if this is clearly harmful. To some it may be helpful, and we live in the land of the free. I am not a fan of toddlers getting their ears pierced, but I leave it up to parental discretion. I am not a fan of religious infant genital mutilation ceremonies and find aesthetic arguments for it to reasoned but not held to the same standard as other forms of genital mutilation. I don't believe it is my place nor could it be my place to determine the identity that another person chooses to take on. I do not think it is the state's responsibility to interject until the science actually shows this is harmful.
Comparing post operation results of people with mental disorders to the rates of mentally healthy people is dishonest and is not seeking actual truth but instead is justifying continued alienation of people with already rough lives.
Just try to consider the possibility that all of the crazy chemicals and reduction of testosterone and stuff that is going on with adults, is also going on with babies that aren't fully formed inside the mothers. That is might have some crazy impacts on their sexual behavior and beliefs. If it can make the frogs gay, what can it do to a baby? The kids in this are kids, I really hope that their parents know them better than I do and love 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay-by1se sorry that the army took everything. I've tried to warn people that elite training is being comfortable in uncomfortable conditions. That it wrecks families and takes more time, which includes your weekends. But you did triple volunteer, nobody forced you. You were given many opportunities to walk away with your dignity intact.
Awareness meditation, mindfulness meditation, yoga, physical exercise, vitamin B1, sunshine, methalyne blue, cold exposure, dipping your face in ice water, walking barefoot in the grass, clean your room, follow the alcoholics anonymous 12 step even if you never touched any of it. All of these things really do help. You will need a lot of tools in your box. I'm sorry man, I know your pain. Thank you for your service.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RoomerJ Holy crap! I am sorry for my previous response. I have a couple emotional problems and I must have been raging. I just read the comment string for context. Look man, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are the three values upon which this country is founded. It was intended for each (we know the racist sexist reality of the time here) person to own enough land to be free of all others and to unite in independence from England and English taxes and to never be like England and never have a church rule the government again. This is the land of rebellious pirates founded on violent treason against the English Throne. That is who we are, that is what this country is. You can be free, but if you oppose freedom, you are an enemy of this nation.
Now we can point to the real history, the history of oil barons, trusts, cooperation of upper classes to control and exploit the working classes. But the value is to band together and fight against that, to be free, to not allow others to exploit you. You can think a whole lot of things here, you can stand for a whole lot of things, you got all types of freedom of religion, speech, thought, and the right to spread your ideas. The only thing we have to agree on, where we all meet in the middle the one thing that keeps us all from killing each other is that contract, that agreement to respect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you can't abide that, then we are all killing each other.
A whole lot of people were raised in alienated worlds raised by first person shooters and military fighting as entertainment. There are more guns than citizens in this country, and times are going to get ugly. Making the world a better place is admirable, but what makes the world a better place for you doesn't mean that it makes it better for everyone and not everyone is likely to agree with you that it is even better. You would just be another oil baron or zealous priest at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've noticed that I don't compare potential partners with each other that often anymore. Rather I compare them to my solitude. My solitude is a solid 7, it's not all that bad compared to most people these days. Technology has increased the value of my solitude, and now my solitude is wearing makeup. Parasocial relationships have also increased the value of my solitude, and now my solitude is more attractive than seven out of ten people. Now if those people come with problems over and above those of my solitude, well that is something that might drop them down quite a bit. Not only do they have to be worth the dinner I am paying for, they also must make up for the fact that not only could my food been half as much, but also I could have been doing something else with that time.
And so I am picky, and and and, and being with me isn't all that bad as being with you just may be. Also Life & DIY here on youtube is a unicorn, go check her out quietly but don't spook her, unicorns in the wild are very rare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe that four degrees Celsius is the optimal temperature for the cold water, but getting colder and closer to that is good and will have some of the benefits. So yes to cold showers, but they don't work quite so well as ice baths. One of the things that some other people do with cold showers to help get more benefit is that they go from cold to warm (not hot) back to cold, back to warm back to cold, etc. It is changing you from having peripheral blood supply to not having it, that puts pressure on your blood system similar to physical exercise.
Look into alternating temperature showers (cold and warm). Also there is a similar thing for the metabolic benefits that have to do with "thermogenesis" which is teaching your mitochondria to be able to more rapidly burn sugar to heat your body. This gives a lot of the metabolic benefits that ice water bathing does, and you can do it along with ice water bathes (there are many other smaller thermogenic things you can do). For example, there was a brief period through the last summer where I slept on a concrete floor. The concrete drains the heat from your body, this can be a real and dangerous way to get hypothermia, but it was summer and not cold enough to do that. It was very warm nights, no air conditioning, but because of the way that concrete can suck the heat out of your body, I was very cold as I slept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chris4973 I am not a person who denies that humankind has an impact on climate change. What I want you to answer is this simple question. Imagine all humans were gone, they had absolutely no impact on climate because they were gone. Would the climate stop changing?
Now I understand a great deal about climate change. I recommend the youtube channel Potholer54 for you if you would like to have some more information to debunk the big climate change deniers. I not once said that humans have no impact on climate change. I simply said that it is natural for the climate to change, and I am not wrong. The climate changes, it changed before humans were on earth, it has continually changed while humans were on earth and it will change after humans are extinct.
Now I will add on to the fact that humans impact climate change. Birds also impact climate change, whales also impact climate change, insects also impact climate change (especially ants). All of these are true. Anything that moves anything that alters an albido effect creates a small and perhaps statistically insignificant but real change on the climate. You may have heard of the butterfly effect, and it is a real thing. Movement of a single leaf on the ground will alter the climate in a probably imperceptible way. It is a causative effect, that leaf is absorbing light and has an impact on where the heat is, and that heat IS THE CLIMATE.
So how much do humans impact climate? Well a lot if you listen to the professionals. Once again, potholer54 does a great example talking about this stuff in a not an asshole like you are sort of way. By the way, being an asshole won't change minds.
Now you can kindly go fuck off. I gave you a source from NASA. You will just bitch and moan that I didn't serve your egotistical ass in some way that you wanted me to, because everyone must always revolve around what YOU want and what YOU demand. After all, we gotta save this world for YOU. I don't really care to save all the narcissists in the world. People like you prove it isn't worth saving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Damn, this used to be a useful term for me. But not anymore. I don't have evil intentions when I flood people with attention early in the relationship. They just are covered in a shiny layer of new, and my attention is effortless. It won't be like that in a year, I actually need a lot of space. I just don't during the first few months. I don't have bad intentions, and what I did used to be called love bombing, but back then it was more of a self realization, not a complaint made by someone else. Heck, most girls love it. I am the one who gets the problem, I accidently attract women who need less space then I do, and they will crowd me later when I go back to normal, so I get myself into incompatible relationships. But I was never doing it to be mean or manipulate people. It didn't ignore their boundaries, it just gave a false impression that I would be like that later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
New nuclear bombs have plutonium goes boom, the boom squishes the hydrogen until it fuses into helium and goes boom even boomier. I think they have been upgraded with radioactive lithium which gets converted into helium and helps turn some of the hydrogen into helium in the process (the hydrogen to helium overcomes the lithium to helium for those of you thinking that this violated some thermodynamic laws).
The shockwave moves at the speed of sound, and you can see the flash moving at the speed of light. If you see a sudden nuclear flash and the cloud forming, locate the nearest ditch or hill and put the top of your head towards the blast direction. Hold your arms together underneath of you as you are face down to the ground covering your face or your groin (men who desire to be fathers in the future). This will minimize the damage if you are thrown into the air as it makes you kind of aerodynamic. Cover your head with a jacket or shirt, and a wet t-shirt also helps filter heavy particles such as the ones that fall early. Duct tape and plastic sheets should be used to seal all windows and doors and outlets to the outside and you should hunker down inside a sealed building for the next three days, at that time most of the deadliest of the radiation will have dissolved and turned into more stable daughters. The material exposed to the open air is still radioactive but not so much that it will kill you in minutes, don't eat or drink anything exposed to the air. Refrigerators with water in ice trays, and prepackaged food and water is the only safe stuff, also wash off the surface of the containers with lots of water before you touch it. Charcoal is real good at helping clean off contaminated skin and materials and can substantially protect from the remaining radioactive environment. Crunch it up, put it in plastic bags or saran wrap or tape it, or glue, or what you got, stick it about 2mm thick on clothing that covers you head to foot, include gloves if you can, masks are better. Wear sealed safety goggles and headphones, Vaseline helps seal things air tight, spit works in a pinch.
Once upon a time was a cold war, and you may have actually had an idea of what to do if you were under sudden nuclear attack. Hope this ancient information helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope, I am betting that you are an expert at something. Imagine that there needed to be a rule on that topic and I come along with strong opinions but am very obviously ignorant about your expert topic. There is an important nuance that you understand, but I am just too stupid to wrap my mind around it, or perhaps I am being deliberately obtuse (its hard to tell, they look the same). Now imagine that I got a lot of friends and my stupid opinion matters, but you realize that my dumb way of seeing things is going to lead the masses to make a harmful decision on the topic that you know well.
That shit happens all the time. Just about every instance of stupid shit happens in front of someone else who knows better and is face palming on the inside over just how dumb the public can be. Just when you thought that nobody could be possibly stupid enough to believe the dumbest shit, someone comes along and proves you wrong. Now imagine that these idiots were the norm in your state, and that this happened with just about every topic just about every time. You just might well have to change the rules before the people vote to burn down their houses for fire prevention in "HR bill 0911, The Fire Prevention and Justice for Chemicals Act" (made up for humor, but the point sticks).
The rules have to be changed as the goals shift, the population changes, the resource production sites produce resources, the economies shift, etc just about anytime something important comes up and the stupid masses get to have an opinion on it and the reality is nuanced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mockfanatik No, I voted for Biden because the Q anon crowd hated him so much. If they hate him, he must be doing something right. I agree with you on not trusting government and media, but I also don't trust moral crusaders.
I like freedom but so long as there are groups of people who don't, I won't be trying to save people from the tyranny that they wished on others. And that DOES make the world a better place. It teaches people to learn to live and let live, and you must admit, the world hasn't been going that direction. I believe the reason for this is that there are many would be oppressive types that go around looking for trouble and looking to stop other people from being free.
If you served in the military at all, you have met countless abusive people like this. They tend to stay in on the enlisted time for long periods of time even retire on it. They will go out of their way to make the lives of other people miserable while hiding behind rank. They want it to be one way oppression. There are times when it is for training and teaching discipline, but then there are a lot of times that it is not for that and it is just dickheads being dickheads because they can.
I see this mirrored in various religious communities. LDS church had a huge push against gay marriage back in the day. Some churches have gotten together with paramilitary and actually have people in other countries acting in a military manner to enforce church values on non-church members. I prefer those types to be in Covid camps, get the stupid virus fear mongers morality forced upon them.
Bad faith breeds bad faith, and the last 10 years feels like both the left and the right are just doubling down on bullshit over and over. Live and let live, freedom is important. But for those who insist it isn't, I don't mind watching them learn the hard way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1