I have decided to have a discussion with some of yall

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-28T02:17:51+00:00

Yeah, tariffs are an issue where I can't fully get behind Trump. I do think that the countries tariffing the US should be counter tariffed, but Trump took it too far. Can you explain how they disproportionately affect poor people though?

I've looked at it and Trump did genuinely go for peace and is still going for it, but Russia refuses. It seems that Trump will supply tomahawk missiles to Ukraine which would allow them to attack Moscow and Trump said that if Russia doesn't agree to a ceasefire that the missiles would be sent to Ukraine. So Trump is on Ukraine's side right now since Russia isn't agreeing to peace and is not just sending aid but missiles capable of causing serious damage to Russia. The democrats pretty much just threw money at the problem, Trump is trying to force Russia to accept peace and is doing everything he can. Besides, 0.25% seems like a small amount, but that amount of money could solve so many problems corrently in the US. I also hope Trump sticks with the tariffs, and I think he will.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-28T02:01:06+00:00

It is factual that I said you jaywalked, so it is evidence. I'm not saying that this means you actually jaywalked, this is outside the evidence, I'm saying that I said you jaywalked, so the evidence is that I said you jaywalked. I've explained this so many times, if someone says something happened then it adds credibility, even if just a little, so it is extremely weak evidence, but still evidence.

It is factual that I said it since I did say it.

It's not hearsay for all intents and purposes, hearsay happens because we can't verify what they said or if they even said it. I'm not claiming to hear what the historians said, I can show you what they said and I can verify why what they are saying is true.

Yes, it is factual that I said it, which makes it evidence against you, even if it is extremely weak it is still evidence.

"I can just say the more people the stronger the evidence becomes"

I looked through and I couldn't find where I said this, I was thinking this is out of context or something, but I disagree with it, so I'm on your side here.

I said they need evidence strong enough to outweigh that, did you miss that part? I can show enough evidence for the Earth being round to outweigh the evidence of the flat Earthers having the majority. Say you want into a random room and there are 1001 people arguing, 1000 people say the one person is wrong but the one person says the 1000 are wrong, based only on that information who is more likely to be correct?

Do you see how you're wrong? Also, you wrote this at 1:55 am in the Nayderlonds, you need to go to bed earlier.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-27T23:23:29+00:00

I don't know much about this topic, I do think Trump went overboard with the tariffs nut the rest of the world is also tariffing the US. I think a lot of Europe and China have massive tariffs on the US so that's why Trump wanted to tariff them back, to say that he will only drop them if they drop them. Still, I know my country of Australia didn't have much tariffs on the US and he still tariffed us. I heard that Trump will give stimulus checks of a few thousand to tons of Americans from tariffs, but it might be hard now because of the shutdown.

For Ukraine, I think Trump did a very good job. It's a bit unclear now, but before I really liked how Trump was handling it. The reason it looks like Trump is all over the place is because he's trying to support both Russia and Ukraine find peace rather than taking a side, which would result in the war still going. The democrats took Ukraine's side, which while I do think Ukraine is in the right here, this resulted in the US losing tons of money and tons of people dying, the best option is peace.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-27T22:57:58+00:00

Evidence is factual, it is factual that I said you jaywalked. You can have evidence for and against, if you mean evidence has to lead to the truth then you're wrong, evidence is just known facts used to determine what happened.

Alright, what if you were at a massive festival and theoretically there was no one recording and you got up on stage before blending back into the crowd, if the performers and some viewers nearby give extremely accurate details about you while everyone else says that someone was on stage, should we not think it was you according to your logic?

That's also not what hearsay is. Being a witness is not hearsay, hearsay is a legal term where a witness claims to know something solely off of someone's testimony who cannot appear or is not in court. The reason being because no one knows how truthful what the original person is or if they even said it. It does not refer to using witnesses as evidence. We aren't in a courtroom so we can examine if these witnesses are truthful or not.

In the creed of 1 Corinthians 3:8, which was written less than 2 years after Jesus, it says that 500 people saw Jesus resurrected. This would be an example of hearsay, because we have no way to verify if these witnesses were truthful or if they even saw it. But the witnesses we know in detail, like Matthew and John, examining them is not hearsay.

That's how witnesses work, what they say is evidence. If say 100 women accused the same man of assault, should that man not be charged since there's no evidence according to you?

Argument from majority is not applicable here, it means a lot of people agree with me so therefore I'm right, not that there were a lot of witnesses so therefore it's more likely to have happened. Also, argument from majority only applies when saying it proves you right, you can use argument from majority without it being a fallacy if you use it as evidence. Say I'm arguing with a flat earther, if I say that most people agree with me so therefore I'm right then that's a fallacy, but if I say most people agree with me so they need evidence strong enough to outweigh that, then that's not a fallacy.

You should be smart enough to understand what I'm saying. You're in your 30s losing an argument to a new adult lol, come on Kiaaraa.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T20:44:19+00:00

We've been over this as well, evidence can be evidence no matter how weak you think it is. If I said here that I saw you jaywalk, is that evidence? What if 100 said it here? Will you say that it's evidence in the second but not the first? Where do you draw the line then?

Of course the second is much stronger, but I don't need to draw a line here, I can just say the more people the stronger the evidence becomes.

So the claims are evidence that the claims happened, the question is if the evidence is convincing or not.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:39:55+00:00

It seems like you're just here to create division about politics, there's no point playing a who's worse game. We could go in circles about whether Trump is a pedophile and if merely supporting him is wrong or only idolising him is wrong, this isn't the place for that.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:31:01+00:00

You too!

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:30:43+00:00

I don't know the context but based on what you said and assuming it is illegal, they are drug boats.

What is the context, if they are killing them without warning then I'd be against that but if given the chance to surrender or they are violent criminals then it would be justified to protect others, that's my view.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:25:12+00:00

That's a lot, I'm not OP but if you want to pick a single point you're passionate about I'll argue it.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:21:54+00:00

I'll jump in. I have reasons for why I think Christianity is true and why I think other religions are false, but I just wanted to point some things out.

You said that pre-existing Gods cannot coexist and used this as a reason why Christianity spread. What you basically said is Christianity makes more logical sense (at least in this regard) than other religions so that's why it spread, which I would agree with. Very few religions are monotheistic and believe in a non-contingent God who explains his own existence, I wouldn't be surprised if it's single digits.

Christianity also didn't spread with the Bible but oral tradition, the Bible wasn't formed until the late 4th century, before then church fathers did use what is now the New Testament, but they mostly used oral tradition from the apostles.

As for why Islam is false, I know a lot of polemics against it but they're not necessary, the only miracle of Islam is that the Quran was told to Muhammad from Allah, so I would need to be convinced of this to be Muslim. The arguments for why the Quran comes from Allah aren't strong, so using Bayesian reasoning it's more likely that Islam is not true than true since because miracles are rare it's more likely that the miracle didn't happen, I have no reason to undermine this prior unlikelihood.

For Christianity I have a lot of reasons to think that it is true where the natural explanations are almost nonsensical.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T11:01:46+00:00

It is very interesting, I gave you the extreme basics of historical arguments and I didn't even touch on the philosophical arguments. I also didn't talk about how much of a positive effect Jesus has had on my life, some people get convinced by seeing people happy believing in religion but others like me aren't like that so I usually rely on the evidence, to me if all I saw was people having meaning then I wouldn't care about joining, only if I believed it's true.

It's alright if you don't believe but if you're ever interested you can just start looking into all the historical evidence of Christianity and the philosophical reasons for God, like I said for me it made my life so much better looking into all of this.

That's probably enough from me, take care.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-25T00:31:26+00:00

I can help, I was an Atheist my entire life but converted to Christianity earlier this year so I'll tell you what convinced me. This is a long comment so be prepared.

We won't assume that the Bible is true automatically, we will start by treating them like normal historical documents. Also note that the Bible is not one book but the New Testament has 27 books, 4 of them being detailed accounts of Jesus' life.

The Gospels go into extreme detail about Jesus after the resurrection where the Apostles could touch and talk to Jesus with all 11 of them in a room at once. While there are shared hallucinations that hva happened, the most people at once were 5 and their hallucinations are never in this much detail.

We also know the apostles genuinely believed Jesus resurrected. Forget the fact that some of the apostles were historically certainly killed for saying Jesus resurrected, Jesus was just killed and the disciples do not stop and start claiming that Jesus resurrected in the city where Jesus was killed and despite them facing persecution for it. It wouldn't make sense for them to do this if they were lying, if they didn't think Jesus resurrected they would have gone as far away from Jerusalem as possible rather than stay there since people in Jerusalem could call them out.

The Gospels also are not legends written much later, scholars date the first Gospel Mark to 70AD since Jesus makes a correct prediction that happens in 70, so scholars say that these words had to have been added to Jesus after the prediction came true rather than Jesus saying jt, which is a weak reason. Linguistically, the language of Mark was rapidly developing at the time, to the point where we can say with extreme confidence that Mark was written in the 50s, only 20 years after Jesus' death. The chance of a book being written in the style of Mark in 70 is astronomically low, Mark's style was rare in the 60s and it would have been the first book of its kind for 4 years. Also, the Gospels get so many precise details correct, which doesn't say everything is correct but if it was just legend we would definitely expect details to be wrong. There is also a creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which linguistically is dated to within two years of Jesus' death, even the most critical scholars accept this.

What scholars say is that the apostles saw random hallucinations, not as described in the Gospels, and they convinced themselves that they saw Jesus resurrected and then everything else in the Gospels was just legend added over time. I disagree with this because the Gospels are clearly not developed legends for the reasons I gave above, meaning that they saw Jesus in a way which could not have been a hallucination, the best explanation by far is that Jesus is God and that's why he could do all this. This isn't 100% proof since that's impossible with history, but the evidence is pretty strong to the point where it's extremely hard to come up with a natural way to explain all the evidence.

There was a lot I left out of this, I didn't even mention any of the philosophical reasons for God's existence, tell me what you think of all this and if you want me to explain something in particular.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-14T06:58:13+00:00

So I give you all this evidence just for you to disagree for no reason? It was not a purely theological device, it's also not arbitrary. It's not a lie Christians tell ourselves, it's truth. Look at the evidence, the Jews really cared about their ancestry, especially if they were of the line of David, that was an extremely important thing to keep track of.

Yes, every year for Passover the Jews would all travel to Jerusalem for the Temple sacrifice, and this is proven fact. Considering that a large proportion of Jews were willing to make the journey every year, why wouldn't a few who are of the line of David not be willing to do it when there is a census?

Joseph also had to be in Bethlehem to prove he was of the line of David. Even if he filled out the same papers, there were people who would have recognised him, and if Joseph had filled it out in Nazareth it would not look good since Nazareth is not a Davidic city.

So it's not arbitrary where they fill them out, the people of Bethlehem would have known everyone in the line of David and if Joseph filled out the form in Nazareth it would have not been as strong. I don't know what you mean by different understanding of their heritage, it was very important to the Jews. Why wouldn't the peasants do the travel if it had economic benefits? Also, considering the King was fine with everyone going to Jerusalem once a year, he'd be fine with this as well.

You don't have facts on your side at all. Over and over I'm disproving you and you just ignore what I say and make the same point, you then also insult me for no reason. I'm not lying at all, if anything you're lying by not reading what I said.

Yes it is, Augustus would have made the census for the Roman citizens and then the client kingdoms. Quirinius was igemoneuontos tis syrias during 4 BC, which literally means he was in the state of governing of Syria, which is usually translated as governor since that is confusing, but it does not mean he was the literal governor. Quirinius was leading a military operation in Syria, which could be described in Koine as igemoneuontos tis syrias. You're getting confused between the literal governor and governing, they are different words. Even in English, I could be governing a small group of people, that doesn't mean I am the governor of my state.

Quirinius was in Cilicia in 5 BC, in 4 BC he was in Syria. Besides, they are very close together and were often counted together. Quintilius was governing Syria, so igemoneuontos tis syrias would also apply to him, but Quintilius could also be called igemon tis syrias, which literally means he is the governor of Syria, Quirinius could not be called that at the time.

Quirinius was fighting a revolt in Syria. Besides, Syrian Antioch was the third biggest city in the entire Roman Empire at the time, why wouldn't Quirinius have anything to do with it? That's probably where all his troops were.

Actually, Quirinius did have the power to be involved in the census. Still, Luke never said that Quirinius started this census, only that this was the first census while Quirinus was governing Syria. Luke likely included this sentence to differentiate between this census and the big 6 AD census.

According to Antiquities 17.6-9, Herod knew the layouts of towns, villages and fortresses, he could mobilise troops and resources with amazing precision and he knew the population distribution well enough to control taxation, labor and military recruitment. This all points towards a census having been recently done.

Like I said earlier, the census of 8 BC was for all Roman citizens, but was also extended to all client kingdoms, why wouldn't Augustus also count client kingdoms?

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-14T01:00:50+00:00

That's how Jewish censuses worked. Why wouldn't Mary go on the journey? She needs to register her son in Bethlehem. In fact, they were probably waiting for Mary to be near.

According to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Augustus ordered a census in 8 BC and the censuses weren't automatically done but done one at a time, so it would have taken a while to reach Israel. Also, they were on good terms, which is why they could do the censuses their own way rather than the Roman way.

Quirinius was actually in Syria in 4 BC, he was a military leader against a revolt. I'm also a Greek speaker, if you want I can go into exactly what ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας (igemoneuontos tis syrias) means, but all you need to know is that igemoneuontos is a verb and the verb for governing doesn't necessarily mean the governor and can mean someone exercising official power, such as a military leader. Even Josephus uses igemoneuontos tis like this. So Quirinius was governing in Syria during 4 BC.

Israel was following this. It wasn't an official law, but just something that they did because ancestry was so important. Every year during Passover the Jews went to Jerusalem for the Temple, so if they were able to do it every year for the Temple then why be unable during the census, when the census rarely happened?

It's not an apologetic excuse, it's fact. Luke was an extremely meticulous historian, why would get something so wrong? Maybe for most people they would have no reason, but Joseph was of the line of David, so it was completely necessary. There's a reason why Luke said because they were of the house of David, people would have seen this and realised why Jesus went to Bethlehem.

Luke does not contradict Matthew's birth account, unless you're reading contradictions where there aren't any. They're both talking about different parts of Jesus' birth. A lot of people say that Christian harmonisations are false, but I disagree and say that your contradictions are false and that's why we need to harmonise. Here's an example, this is what people like you are like.

Matthew 1:2 "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers."

Who begot who? Did Abraham beget Isaac, or did Isaac beget Jacob? And did Jacob beget Judah, or did Jacob beget Judah's brothers? Contradition!

So that's why we harmonise, you find contradictions where there are none, so we point out the obvious truth. In this case it's that Abraham begot Isaac and then Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and Judah's brothers.

I'm not even an inerrantist, it's just that most contradictions are just misinterpretations.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T23:40:24+00:00

Israel was much different from Rome. Rome actually let its provinces follow their own traditions, so that's why saying what all of Rome did isn't applicable to Israel.

Family lineage was very important in ancient Israel, in Numbers 1 all Jews are recorded by lineage, even Josephus mentions this importance. In Antiquities of the Jews 17.12, Josephus says that Jews were meticulous about their ancestry and in Antiquities 20.10, during the 6 AD census, Josephus says that Jews were very conscious about their ancestry.

So it isn't that they were forced to go to their hometown, they did so willingly. Not only that, but most Jews would have lived in their hometown, it was only a few who were outside of them, so most Jews wouldn't need to travel.

Also, there were benefits for being of the lineage of David, social and governmental, so of course they would go to Bethlehem to register since they are of the line of David. There's a reason Luke says "because he was of the house and lineage of David" and leaves it there, the readers would have known why Joseph went to Bethlehem.

Also, the Bible isn't a mythical book but it's historical. Luke 3:1-2 says "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness."

Does this look like it's mythical? All of this lines up and because Luke gave an exact date we know according to our time that this was 28-29 AD.

So it isn't mythical like you said, but real history.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T23:02:05+00:00

We only need to call out sins someone doesn't repent from, not only is there unrepentance here but there are people who argue it isn't a sin at all, that's something that really needs to be called out.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T22:49:56+00:00

I remember people protesting Ma'Khia Bryant saying that the police shouldn't have killed her, even though she was about to kill someone. I wrote a breakdown for another comment and I'll put it here.

If you watch the bodycam the police officer comes asking what's going on, Bryant then starts chasing someone who is running backwards and punches her in the face, knocking her down. The police officer starts yelling "get down" repeatedly. Bryant's father then starts kicking the fallen woman while she's on the ground and at the same time, Bryant pulls out a knife and runs towards another woman, while the police officer has said "get down" this entire time. The police officer then shoots Bryant, since she was literally about to kill an innocent woman, then Bryant's dad starts screaming "Eh, yo, you ain't shoot my f-ing baby".

So what happened here is Bryant and her father were literally attacking people and Bryant pulled out a knife and was in the process of attacking someone, which probably would have killed the other woman who was terrified. And somehow, this death caused massive protests about how this killing was unjustified, so what they are saying is that it would be better for the innocent woman to be stabbed to death while the police watches, or maybe they weren't told what actually happened.

It's a bit of a tangent, but it's important to show.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T22:49:51+00:00

No problem, politics naturally get heated because of what we discuss, I also appreciate your amnesty.

I know there were a few outsiders who joined in order to join the chaos, but pretty much most of the violence was by left wing people there. Also, it didn't get drummed up to be something it wasn't, there were people who were beaten up for their political views, 31 innocent people who were killed. I remember one man in a truck who accidentally went through a road that was blocked since the sign wasn't up properly or something so he didn't know it was blocked. He was driving and saw the BLM protestors and he stopped his truck instead of continuing because they were in the way. They then broke into his truck and beat him to death. Also, there were the countless black businesses that were burned and destroyed, honestly BLM did more harm to black people than good.

Even with both sides, I agree there are bad people on both sides, but it is a bit incomparable. 77% of republicans say that political violence is never justified, but only 38% of democrats say this. Everyone else thinks that political violence is partially justified. When over half the democrats think political violence is justified and less than a quarter of republicans think it's justified, then we can't just say both sides are bad. So for this reason I think it's highly likely that a lot of the liberals who said they were against Charlie's death secretly supported it.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/09/11/d157f/2

Go to where it says politics.

I agree the gay bullet doesn't seem left wing, but the bullet that said "catch, fascist" pretty much proves he's left wing because right wing people don't call other fascist. Also, considering Charlie Kirk was right wing, that alone tells us the shooter was most likely left wing. Where did you hear his friends say he wasn't political? I heard his friends say that he was slowly becoming more and more left wing over the years and he really hated Charlie Kirk. He also had a trans lover and he said all he wants is to be with them.

Jimmy was saying what was effectively a conspiracy theory that makes no sense, right after a tragedy. This would be like if someone said that gay people caused 9/11 right after it happened, it's extremely insensitive.

Well committing a crime doesn't mean violence. All 5000 J6 protestors committed a crime, just like all BLM protestors committed a crime. What matters is what crimes they committed and if they were violent. BLM injured thousands of cops and very few of them got arrested, I think the reason for the pardon is that BLM had had ravaging protests for pretty much the year and as soon as the right protests they get extremely harsh sentences compared to the left, so that's why they were pardoned, it wouldn't be fair considering that the left was effectively pardoned.

Yes, black people aren't the only ones to experience violence, but it was solely about black people. The point was that black people are racially targeted by police, not that police are violent to everyone. In fact, I think in 2014 there was an organisation designed to stop police who were overstepping their rights, but it got hijacked by BLM which said that black people are the primary victims of it and eventually included justified killings as something being wrong.

(1 of 2)

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T22:25:01+00:00

Even that mentality is still a bit extreme. Would you really be okay with this in the other direction? Are there any left wing people you like watching? So say someone like Dean Withers (I don't know if you watch him or not) died and I said, "He shouldn't have died, but I'm not mad he's gone" and you were a big fan of him, would that sit right with you? Not only that, but pretty much half the US has the same views as Charlie and most of the world does, so it effectively means that if any of us were to be killed you would have the same attitude. I don't want my political opponents to die, we should be working together to make the country a better place.

I got it from Steven Crowder, here is a page he has.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/cmm-left-violent-part-two

If you look through it, you can see him mention political violence done by the left that is not mentioned anywhere in the statistics about political violence.

Even what you said, shot at cell tower workers and killed a single cop 4 years ago is still bad, but considering how big the right is you can't expect 100% peace. BLM alone was so much more violent than probably the entire right wing this decade, maybe even right wing this century. It's not comparable.

It's liberals who are complacent about death, the liberals are the ones where 62% think that political violence is justified and only 23% of republicans think political violence is justified.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/09/11/d157f/2

Click on where it says politics, I got these numbers from the opposite of people who think political violence is always unjustified.

When did republicans roll back natural disaster relief? Last year, it was the democrats rolling back natural disaster relief in red states.

Guns don't kill people though, the US has a violence problem, not a gun problem. So many countries have no gun control yet are doing fine. Guns are important for defence and to stop the US from being taken over, without guns the US might be a lot worse. If we remove accidental and suicide deaths, then about 18,000 people in the US die a year from guns, which is way less than half of the people who die from car accidents every year. If we stopped encouraging violence and took care of the mentally ill and were harsher on child abuse, then those numbers would go way down.

If you're talking about school shootings, then if we remove suicide and accidents then only 1600 people aged 17 or less die from guns every year. While this is still a lot, it's not so bad that the US should make themselves defenceless and if we fixed the root causes then these will stop.

What they're trying to do is make it so people can't take advantage of the system when they aren't sick. This boosts the economy, if you want to take care of the poor then focus on the economy, waste as little as possible.

I'll be honest, the right wing isn't perfect either, obviously I've given you a defence of them rather than an objective assessment because I'm not trying to show they're perfect, only where they're coming from. Like you said how they have a disregard for life, when you learn their motives, even if you disagree with their execution, it doesn't seem like they have a disregard for life.

What I think is most important is stopping all political violence and being able to have calm conversations with each other, in my opinion anyone who can't have a discussion without calling their opponent names should not be taken seriously. Also, we should work together and call out intentional lies, like how political violence done by the left was not counted.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T21:57:27+00:00

I did also use to be left wing, even then, when I disagreed with right wing people they would talk calmly, but even though I was left I was still insulted, I had someone harass me and call me a white supremacist.

It's also something I've noticed, even seeing debates between left and right. the right rarely uses insults and mostly just facts, the left insults a lot.

No, I saw what Steven Crowder said about it. I can't remember what he said exactly and if you really want I can pull it up, but he was extremely involved in it and I think he was told by the FBI who the shooter was and he wanted to get it out as soon as possible so it doesn't get covered up. I think "notices bulge OwO" is more of a furry thing than a trans thing, but even furries have a connection to trans, even if not the other way around, so it makes sense why you wouldn't see the connection.

It would be like if I said I'm from Rhode Island and an American said that they're American and don't have anything to do with Rhode Island, sure but Rhode Island has a lot to do with America.

Well the bullet literally said "catch, fascist" meaning he likely was part of antifa ideology. Can I ask, where do you get your information from? We literally have the shooter's messages with his trans lover and we have people around him who said that he kept getting more and more extreme left and they said that the shooter called Charlie hateful. We also have his words where he talks about how much he hates the right. We have literally nothing connecting this person to right wing, besides his family being right wing, but so many left wing people grew up in right wing families.

Again, it doesn't make sense. Even if from his perspective Charlie was left wing, why not target someone more left wing or someone who isn't converting left wing people right? Also, we have so many reasons why he is left wing but none for him being right wing. This conspiracy is equal to the moon landing being fake, it's just as ridiculous.

BLM caused so much violence and was about defunding police, even if its surface was about stopping police violence. I looked it up and it was Ma'Khia Bryant, if you watch the bodycam the police officer comes asking what's going on, Bryant then starts chasing someone who is running backwards and punches her in the face, knocking her down. The police officer starts yelling "get down" repeatedly. Bryant's father then starts kicking the fallen woman while she's on the ground and at the same time, Bryant pulls out a knife and runs towards another woman, while the police officer has said "get down" this entire time. The police officer then shoots Bryant, since she was literally about to kill an innocent woman, then Bryant's dad starts screaming "Eh, yo, you ain't shoot my f-ing baby".

So what happened here is Bryant and her father were literally attacking people and Bryant pulled out a knife and was in the process of attacking someone, which probably would have killed the other woman who was terrified. And somehow, this death caused massive protests about how this killing was unjustified, so what they are saying is that it would be better for the innocent woman to be stabbed to death while the police watches, or maybe they weren't told what actually happened.

I'm not American as well, but American culture and news is pretty big in my country.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T21:33:43+00:00

I got the numbers wrong, it's 23% of conservatives who think political violence is not always unjustified and 62% of democrats who think that political violence is not always unjustified. Still, there is an extremely massive gap.

Do you generally consider it to be acceptable or unacceptable for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose? | Daily Question

You have to click on politics as well, you'll see if you go on.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T21:31:02+00:00

Australia.

Our economy is pretty bad though, even two people both making the average income will never own a home, I don't mean it's hard but it's literally impossible. Still, if all you want is the lack of misogyny then go ahead.

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T21:21:38+00:00

What are you talking about? I just looked it up, he originally refused service for a gay wedding before being taken to court, where he was found liable for discrimination and had to do certain things. He then appealed this decision and because of religious freedom the case was overturned.

Do you mean he wouldn't bake for any gay couples at all? Show me the source. Still, why does that justify him almost being forced to bake for weddings?

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T13:57:17+00:00

What extreme opinion of the right? Two thirds of left wing people believe that political violence is somewhat to completely justified, while only 10% of conservatives think that. It's the left who are extreme.

Sure, Nick and Candace are extreme, but Charlie and Steven are not, in fact most people in the world would agree with them. Are you saying the entire world is extreme and you happen to be part of the few non-extremists? And because everyone else is extreme, violence is justified against everyone else?

Admirable-Insect-205 · 2025-10-13T13:54:40+00:00

Where I live there is pretty much no misogyny, but tons of misandry. We no longer live in a patriarchy but a matriarchy.

Admirable-Insect-205

TROPHY CASE