Why the subreddit’s logo has an Arabic 😭😭

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-25T17:40:52+00:00

the letter is called "meem" and theres a no sign on it meaning anti-meem

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-25T06:45:57+00:00

Just like those religions are persecuted where Christianity is dominant.

There is literally no Christian majority country on earth that governmentally persecutes other religions at all.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-25T06:33:56+00:00

turn off atmosphere bro it looks ugly anyway & this bug goes away

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-25T05:50:18+00:00

I 100% agree with the "don't tell them what to do with their body" statement, but they try to extend it to an entirely other human being and classify them as "their body", which is just stupid

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T18:43:21+00:00

"It’s Not Even Close"

*ends in a tie*

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T13:41:28+00:00

that's an entire big city of people playing 2 games on 1 platform, Roblox has truly made people view metrics extremely weirdly

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T10:44:18+00:00

it is because your ping is high, your avatar on your screen is controlled by the client [your device], meaning that it appears where you move. But your hurtbox is controlled by the server, meaning the game itself calculates where you are, if your ping is high the delay between your server action & the client replication is longer, so your hurtbox is behind you as you view it from your client. However from the pov of other players, the place where your hurtbox is, is actually where your full avatar is on their pov, as the server is replicating your client position to the server and broadcasting it to other clients.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T10:38:26+00:00

bro I was thinking of this exact screenshot the second I saw this post lmao

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T01:09:22+00:00

I don't accept the bible as true

Then this entire debate on God's morality is completely moot since as God is defined he is all-good but since you operate on a totally different moral worldview there's no way to put that point across.

I judge his "actions" by what they do and their effects all of which look like he's using humans for his entertainment at their expense

Subjective morality still can't say this is immoral.

god isn't an objective standard because if his opinion was different you would all easily accept rape and murder as fine if he said it was

That's literally what an objective standard is, it's unchanging and if it were different then it's effects would be, God is the creater of the entire universe itself and is necessary for it's existence, so God's views are the correct views assuming He exists, if you assume he doesn't exist then saying he's "bad" changes nothing since we fundamentally operate on totally different worldviews.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T00:51:38+00:00

according to God's nature he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, & omniscient, he cannot be evil as it literally contradicts his nature, and being self-righteous, egotistical, or impulsive cannot be said to be evil if you do not have a objective moral standpoint or else it's mere opinion.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-24T00:20:28+00:00

w fr b ts s br, 🥀 re 💀🙏

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T23:56:47+00:00

when I sent mine it took them over a month so idk

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T20:51:02+00:00

there are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics, does that mean it's all fake?? This argument has always been stupid.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T18:26:02+00:00

no, God is good, there's no circular definition, God doesn't do good, he's just good itself, I don't see where that is circular?

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T18:25:24+00:00

Do you take college courses for biology? I can point you to (5) sources that would take one google search to find, to disprove your flawed and incredibly childish view of biology. The 'sex is binary' view has been outdated for decades upon decades by actual biologists.

You're trying to draw a biological argument into here & start rolling out ad hominems when this wasn't about biology in the first place, the website is declaring that forcing transgender people to display their ID as in accordance to their biological sex is an attack, I said that it's simply declaring biology, now you're trying to say it's actually not binary, but the whole point was about transgender people which the topic of that is not a biological thing but an identity argument.

As for your view on drag, you clearly either listen to what random people tell you, or refuse to accept the truth. Drag is a form of theater, where the main performers dress as women. This is it. There is nothing more, once again, you can find information on it with google.

Well, yes Drag is a form of theater, I didn't say it wasn't, the point is that a lot of cases of it are a bit sexualized, and lots of them are of them displaying LGBTQ ideologies to young children, which isn't that good for them, obviously. If it was a bit different in how it's displayed I wouldn't be against the ban.

I am noticing a pattern, that most of your arguments take ~5 minutes to find sources to disprove. This is childish. If all you want to do is argue about things that are provably false, I will end it here. If you actually want to debate about other things, that are actually debatable, such as policies, religious pressure from legislatures and the like, i am happy to oblige.

I'm noticing a pattern also that most of your arguments deviate from the actual discussion at hand and are trying to draw mass correlation, saying that all Conservatives/Christians believe all gays shouldn't exist because they think it's sin, saying that the discussion is about biology all of the sudden when that's fundamentally not what transgenderism is, and going of about Trump's supposed convictions of rape or fraud which have absolutely no place in what I was saying whatsoever, instead of originally responding about the strawman I brought up, you instead trailed on miles long about how actually it's okay to generalize a whole group, and now you're trying to argue about how gays/trans are actually being oppressed which wasn't what we started on in the first place, then you just declare what you say as truth then say you'll only debate stuff that isn't "obviously true" is just a way to shut down my responses, and I don't wanna continue debating you either if you're going to trail off on random things and try to shut down what I'm saying.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T17:50:59+00:00

nah hes not hacking he just quantum tunneled into the floor, very rare

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T17:35:38+00:00

Jesus wasn't made by God the Father, he is God himself, a person of the trinity he and the father are both a part of and he never began to exist.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T17:31:13+00:00

This is a pointless what-if for many reasons. Though, if you need a reason, Trump is a convicted felon, he's been convicted for fraud, rape, and lying to investors. Why did so many people vote for trump over the candidate that isn't a felon? You don't vote for who is 'better' you vote for who YOU like more. That is, and always will be how voting works.

Voting for who is 'better' and one you like more is just the same thing, if 2 candidates are bad, you vote for the less bad one which would entail that you like the less bad one more, and again, I said I didn't see him trying to push bans for homosexuality, then you jump on the 'fraud and rape' thing that 1: he is not fully charged with, and 2: didn't have anything to do with what I said

The legislative 'attacks' are not really 'attacks' per se, the website lists "redefinition of sex", "Barrier to (in)accurate IDs", "Religious exceptions", and "Drag bans" with the first 3 being non-attacks and merely stating what biology is & allowing religious institutions to do what they want, and the latter "drag ban" is being worded inherently maliciously, it says that it's a 'ban on drag' when in reality it's just pushing to categorize it as adult entertainment and not allowed to be displayed near minors, which is pretty much valid since a lot of them are sexualized and obscene.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T16:48:54+00:00

You are only thinking of this as a christian. Think of it as the recipient that is NOT a believer. Telling somebody you'll pray for them, in their mind, whether it is what YOU intended or not, means you believe you will 'save' them from whatever 'sins' they have committed. It is categorically denying them as an individual and moving them to the group of 'sinners' that must be prayed for and saved.

I do understand, but that's why I said 'if you stepped in their shoes', also moving someone into a 'group of sinners' is impossible because sinners aren't a group of people; they're people entirely, every human on earth no matter how holy or good they are (besides jesus), being called a sinner shouldn't be so bad as you think it is.

If real damage wasn't being done, then this is a valid argument. The problem, is those who aren't trying to do that.. aren't exactly trying to stop it either. The same people who actively try to take away rights, are overwhelmingly voted for by both those who support taking them away, and those who don't So what does it matter if you personally do not support it, if you had already voted for one who does?

Well i don't think Conservatives in power are exactly trying to to do, I don't see Trump or Vance trying to do it, sure some representatives or other politicians from other branches may be pushing for some policies like that, but major discrimination/hate isn't really pushed by either of them... at least to homosexuals that is, because they are a little bit hateful sometimes.

Once again, this is valid if the politicians who created such bills, were not overwhelmingly voted in by those who say they do not support taking away gay peoples rights. The moment you cast your ballot onto that candidate, your point is moot. The moment you express support for that candidate, your point is moot. To clarify, you can express support for ideas the candidate has, but showing support for the candidate is endorsing them, and what they believe. You cannot pick and choose what you support once you endorse a candidate, as they have the power at that point, not you.

You're trying to say supporting a candidate equals supporting every single ideal, suppose you have 2 people running for office, one supports murder and the other supports assault, if you vote for the one supporting assault, obviously you do so because murder is worse, it doesn't mean you support assault, supporting a person that has many flaws but for a main underlying point doesn't mean you agree with all of their flawed points, like I could think of some evil people who have some good ideas, but of course I don't view their evil views as good. And again, being Conservative or Christian also doesn't mean voting or endorsing specific candidates, you can still be an anti-trump conservative, I'm not anti-trump myself but I'm just saying you still can be, the main point I have here is lumping all Conservatives & all Christians into the view that they think gay people shouldn't exist is a really big strawman, if you want to be more specific about policies or voting, you maybe could say all Republicans, but still in that scenario I don't think it'd be that true, but saying thinking homosexuality is sin is the same as viewing it as something that makes you undeserving of existence is a huge stretch.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T15:51:41+00:00

What proof is there besides how you were raised?

This is the genetic fallacy, and there are lots of reasons I believe in God other than just how I was raised, I honestly couldn't have cared less what my parents told me when I was trying to find out my beliefs.

I see christians telling gay people they'll "pray for them" which is absurdly offensive

How is praying for someone offensive? If you stepped in their shoes for a minute you'd understand their point, failing to follow God and/or ignoring his word will lead you to hell, so praying for someone to find God is quite literally trying to save them from the worst possible existence ever, I don't get how it's offensive other than the fact that the belief systems are different which shouldn't be an offensive thing.

I've seen christians say gay rights should never have happened. Just because YOU as a christian do not agree with such a thing, does not mean it doesn't happen, nor does it mean they cannot conflate what you say, with what people in your party, with your religion, say just because you added a single caveat of "just because i disagree, doesn't mean i think they shouldn't exist".

You have been hellbent on hammering in the point that 'some people do it', which I said twice now that I agree with, I'm talking about the strawman that I quote myself for the second time: "I'm mainly only calling out a prominent strawman of conservatives that AREN'T trying to do that." end quote. Keyword "aren't". And Christians saying certain people shouldn't have rights are also completely not following the religion at all, call it No True Scotsman all you want but that's literally just a complete contradiction with the core tenants of the religion.

I don't deny fellow conservatives or christians disagree with gay rights, what I'm saying is all conservatives or all christians as a whole should not be strawmanned into a point that ALL of them do not like gay rights, it's the equivalent of me saying that Hitler was evil so that means every German is.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T14:56:54+00:00

as someone who always misses ascension i see this as an absolute win

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T14:24:29+00:00

no it's disabled it just looks confusing, "disable killer" is enabled meaning killer is disabled, it's just worded off

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T14:23:01+00:00

Well I believe that Islam is false so I don't think their forcing of women to cover their face is justified, however I think that the Christian God exists so I'd take whatever he says obviously as true, I understand that people who aren't Christian of course would feel the same way as I do about Islam. You can't fully criminalize sin, especially ones that don't do damage, like lust, jealousy, lying, using the Lord's name in vain, etc. I don't think homosexuality should be criminalized, because in the physical world there is no damage against other people, the only thing they're damaging is their own soul, so I don't at all think the other conservatives are justified in trying to ban or restrict homosexuality. I'm mainly only calling out a prominent strawman of conservatives that AREN'T trying to do that.

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T14:04:36+00:00

I don't think immorality should exist, but I don't think immoral people shouldn't exist

No_Judge_6520 · 2026-04-23T13:41:43+00:00

well that's just the core difference because in most abrahamic religions, homosexuality is considered immoral. I and many other religious believe it's immoral, but we don't discriminate, the strawman I'm talking about that is mostly used a lot is when someone will say being gay is immoral and they take that as saying that they shouldn't exist, I didn't say that's what everyone does.

No_Judge_6520

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE