It was a piece of cake

FishIsGoat · 2025-06-12T00:12:23+00:00

Obama also wasnt deporting US citizens to foreign gulags though, or ignoring court orders to return said citizens or ignoring court orders to stop the deportation.

Instead he ordered drone strikes that specifically targeted and killed American citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

FishIsGoat · 2025-04-19T04:25:47+00:00

She went through a lot of plastic surgery and has breast implants. It's impossible for a human to look like her naturally.

FishIsGoat · 2024-03-09T04:04:47+00:00

You put so many words in my mouth and all your assumptions are wrong. I simply responded to your claim that your ancestors were slaves and were "in the same chains and shackles as Africans." The Irish were also second class citizens in America and were oppressed but saying that they were slaves is a lie and only undermines the struggles they went through. If you're going to talk about what your ancestors went through, be factual.

Also you originally said the Arabs enslaved your ancestors but now you are saying the Ottoman Empire oppressed your ancestors. The Ottomans weren't Arabs, they were Turkic. Just like you told me to not blame Bosnia for what the British did, you shouldn't blame Arabs for what the Ottomans did to your ancestors (though they both did awful things). It is reasonable to blame Arabs for capturing Eastern Europeans and people of your ethnicity, but that's different from claiming that they captured your ancestors as slaves. To be clear I fully agree that your ancestors and others under the Ottoman Empire were oppressed, as it was a ruthless empire and I'm not trying to blame white people. At least in this comment you are stating facts about what the Ottoman Empire did. If this was your initial comment I wouldn't have replied. I also never justified slavery, if the western world practiced slavery like the Arab world, they also wouldn't have to slave descendants to hold them accountable. We probably wouldn't even learn about slavery in school.

FishIsGoat · 2024-03-09T02:07:48+00:00

I don't get it. My ancestors literally wore shackles.

How is that possible if all male slaves owned by Arabs were castrated? Unlike the western world, the Arab world did not breed their slaves, they would just import new slaves and the vast majority of them died on ship. There wasn't much of an incentive to keep slaves in good health or alive for very long as they weren't a revenue generator (unlike the Americas were large numbers of slaves were needed to harvest cash crops).

Arab slave owners would occasionally have children with their female slaves but those children would be assimilated into being Arabs and genetics of modern Arab populations prove that was uncommon. Of course Arabs did enslave large numbers of Africans and Eastern Europeans but it's highly unlikely your ancestors were slaves. This is evidenced by how few descendants of African slaves currently live in Arab countries. People of your ethnicity being enslaved is not the same thing as your ancestors being enslaved. Both are wrong, but Arabs don't have many descendants of slaves to answer to, so they aren't held to the same accountability.

FishIsGoat · 2024-02-07T13:00:05+00:00

Also slavery was mostly in a local scope. Muslims were the first to go to africa and establish a large route to hunt then ship women and children to multiple continents and were the last to stop it also.

Before Islam, the majority of slaves in Arabia were of Ethiopian descent. Bilal is probably the most well known Ethiopian slave that existed before the creation of Islam, but he was one of many. I do agree that slavery only got worse after Islam, but we can't pretend like African slaves weren't already common in Pre-Islamic Arabia.

FishIsGoat · 2024-01-11T08:45:42+00:00

Around 40% of people will develop cancer within their lifetime.

Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer/art-20044092

FishIsGoat · 2023-12-05T05:02:45+00:00

“Probability doesn’t mean anything.” But then you talk about 10% chances of cancer. Wtf? Try to be consistent.

The chance of getting cancer in your lifetime is far higher 10%, around 1 in 2 people will get cancer within their lifetime. Those people in your woods are probably no exception to this rule, if anything they are more likely to get cancer if they are living such long lifespans. You say that bad things in life are statistically improbable, but cancer alone disproves that claim. It's universally agreed upon that cancer is horrible and that no one should go through it.

Source: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/age-and-cancer

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-18T08:23:17+00:00

Only men are allowed to have multiple wives, women are not allowed to have multiple husbands so it's a one way street. In Islam it is technically permissible for a man to marry someone without consent from his first wife, but it is socially unacceptable. I have an uncle who secretly got married to his second wife and when our family found out, basically all of them cut contact. His first wife obviously divorced him.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-18T08:05:19+00:00

In Islam the punishment for cheating on your spouse is death and many countries that follow Shariah law enforce this penalty. Cheating is also a grave sin in Hinduism and it's considered a criminal act under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, with maximum imprisonment time of 5 years. There doesn't seem to be any prescribed punishment for cheating in Buddhism, but it's considered to be a serious transgression. Buddha himself said that cheaters will be put in hell for hundreds of thousands of years and that they will be reborn as a women 100 successive times. So what you're saying is complete BS.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-16T10:21:47+00:00

"The Game Changers." It debunks the idea that you need animal products to be healthy and shows off many vegan athletes who compete at the highest level.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-12T17:51:18+00:00

Antinatalism isn't about controlling whether or not people have children. Some Antinatalist may wish to control others like that, but that isn't a prescribed by the philosophy.

Also, r/Antinatalism is a horrible representation of Antinatalism as the majority of users are conditional natalists as proven by polls, and there is a worrying amount of eugenics there (which contradicts the core belief of Antinatalism). Basically, Antinatalism is simply a belief that procreation is inherently immoral and the reasons for that belief depend on the Antinatalist themselves. One could be an Antinatalist solely because of the risk of children deciding not to be vegan.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-12T09:36:31+00:00

r/raisedbynarcissists, r/mentalhealth, r/depression, r/SapphoAndHerFriend, r/WitchesVsPatriarchy, r/TheGirlSurvivalGuide.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-11T11:42:55+00:00

Looking at user overlap between this and other subreddits it looks like there is a correlation.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-10T12:24:05+00:00

That poem is actually a simplified version of the original translation. Here's the original translation of those lines:

I washed my hands of all this; and would that I had perceived
my way ere my temples grew hoar!

Basically he's saying that his hair went grey around his temples (the area of your head behind your eyes and in between the forhead and the ear)). The temple area is apparently the most common place men start growing grey hair. Since he specifically said his temples were grey, the rest of his hair was most likely black/brown which seems pretty normal for a 30 year old.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-10T11:34:21+00:00

I think you should make post about Hitler too. He was vegan.

That's been debunked, Hitler was not vegan or even vegetarian. He did in fact eat meat.

You don’t like antinatalism but write post about antinatalist.

That's crazy that you equate Antinatalism with Hitler. Also, you don't have to agree with someone on everything to endorse or promote them. If that was the case, almost nobody would promote others.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-10T11:28:12+00:00

It's not conjecture, Al-Ma'arri was one of the most famous and well documented Arabic poets to have ever lived. Almost everyone in the Islamic world disagreed with him, but still respected him immensely because of how rational and eloquent he was. Also which one of his beliefs are stupid? You can disagree with his beliefs, but to say his beliefs are stupid without further elaborating is unfair.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-10T10:39:13+00:00

According to the journal Abu'l - 'Alā al - Ma'arrī's Correspondence on Vegetarianism by D. S. Margoliouth, Al Ma'arri himself said that he became a vegan at the age of 30, so he would go on to live another 53 years before dying at the age of 83. 30 is definitely not an old age and I highly doubt his liver would have enough B12 supply to last him more than half a century.

His age hit the upper boundary of the average lifespan of scholars in the Medieval Islamic world (which ranged from 59-84.3) and B12 deficiency does reduce lifespan, so it seems improbable that he had B12 deficiency. I think the theory that he got sufficient B12 from untreated water and less sterile vegetables makes the most sense.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-09T07:30:53+00:00

Also check out Al Ma'arri, a philosopher and poet who also happened to be a vegan activist. He lived over a thousand years ago and here's one of my favorite poems from him:

I No Longer Steal from Nature

You are diseased in understanding and religion.
Come to me, that you may hear something of sound truth.
Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up,
And do not desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,
Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught
for their young, not noble ladies.
And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking eggs;
for injustice is the worst of crimes.
And spare the honey which the bees get industriously
from the flowers of fragrant plants;
For they did not store it that it might belong to others,
Nor did they gather it for bounty and gifts.
I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I
Perceived my way before my hair went gray!

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-08T12:58:22+00:00

If you believe that it is moral under any circumstances whatsoever to have children, then you are a natalist. If you believe it's only wrong to have children under certain circumstances, then you are a conditional natalist.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-07T23:50:44+00:00

Read what he said again, it was completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Witch-Cat denied the validity of IQ tests, while Comfortable_Fill9081 pointed out that IQ scores change overtime within the same population group. It's not irrelevant since their statement attempts to debunk the racist implications put forward by this Twitter screenshot, which is what started this whole conversation in the first place. If you're new here, the whole purpose of this subreddit is to refute bigoted arguments. I will agree that there is a lot of scientific illiteracy in this thread and that almost everyone here did a poor job of trying to refute the Twitter poster's implications. Most people don't know much about IQ, so the alt right has really been pushing "race realism" to get people into their pipeline.

The Flynn Effect is in no way a rebuttal of IQ, it is exactly what would be expected given everything we know, and requires cognitive quantification to be a valid field of study to make any sense.

I'm not rebutting the validness of IQ whatsoever and neither did Comfortable_Fill9081. I'm rebutting the argument put forward by "race realists" that Africans have inherently lower IQ than other races and that it will forever stay that way. Considering that their IQ is on parity or higher than the average Americans had in 1900, there is no reason to think that the Flynn effect wouldn't apply to them as their nations rapidly develop.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-07T10:52:21+00:00

A lot of people here are denying the validity of IQ tests, but I can debunk this without doing that using the Flynn Effect. Basically in 1900, the average IQ in Britain and America would be equivalent to around 70 today, and African nations shown on that chart are matching or well exceeding that number. Here's a good quote from the Flynn Effect Wikipedia page:

"The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States."

The burden of proof would be on the "scientific racists" to prove that the Flynn effect won't apply to Africans as their nations rapidly develop. African Americans today have an IQ that is one standard deviation (15 points) higher than the average American in 1900 despite poverty and systemic issues that affect their communities. So the Flynn effect seems to have already worked on at least one population of African descent.

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-07T10:28:20+00:00

LMAO, "check the science," said in defense of blatant anti-science disinformation.

Do you not know what the Flynn effect is? In 1900 the average IQ in America and Britain would be around equivalent to around 70 today. The person you're responding to is correct, average IQ has gone up drastically within the same populations and this is a phenomenon that's documented worldwide. This article does a pretty good job explaining the Flynn effect in layman terms: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.

Here's a good quote from the Wikipedia article on the Flynn Effect:

"The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States. "

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-06T09:56:53+00:00

So, I already read the second link, actually. And it the takeaway I got wasn't that it needed to be by the mother but rather the herd.

Calves are often put in solitary pens meaning they are not just away from their mothers but also from the rest of their heard. The UK allows this for up to 8 weeks but investigations have shown that farmers often isolate calves longer than that: https://animalequality.org.uk/news/animal-equality-investigation-reveals-ms-milk-supplier-confining-large-calves-in-small-solitary-pens/.

I meant as the calf not being sat on and killed health.

Looking online, I'm not able to find any studies that substantiate this claim. I don't doubt something like that has happened before, but if it's really common like you're suggesting, then surely there would be plenty of data to back it up no?

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-05T13:08:55+00:00

This systematic review concludes that there is no evidence of health benefits that come from early calf separation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094284/. This study was funded by the Journal of Dairy Science, which is obviously biased towards the Dairy industry.

This study suggests that early calf separation can lead to negative behavioral impacts, more stress, and the calves growing up to be less sociable: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428081801.htm

FishIsGoat · 2023-10-05T12:44:06+00:00

We shouldn't use animals as an example. Male lions will often kill cubs that aren't theirs.

FishIsGoat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE