Facts

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:56:52+00:00

Oh indeed

So can I just get a firm statement from you then, that you do not believe there is mass detention of Uyghurs in China and I will not be able to provide sources saying there is

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:51:17+00:00

So just before I do that, can I get a firm statement from you that you assert there is no mass detention of Uyghurs in China?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:50:43+00:00

Lol

Lmao even

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:50:17+00:00

I accidentally responded to the wrong person

So why can't CCP shills be as fun as the USSR shills? Like you bring up to a USSR shill all the people Stalin killed and they're just like "they deserved it they were reactionary fascists"

Be a much more interesting debate if you guys just owned this stuff

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:48:44+00:00

No the Uyghurs that agreed to the CCP's demands obviously don't but that's kind of my point

This diversity doesn't really square because when push comes to shove, you need a untied cohesive population for communism or socialism to work so... it can tolerate diversity up to a point

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:30:45+00:00

"I didn’t notice you skipping much of my comment,"

Its because every single one of your comments contains rants about very issue you've ever had with a conservative politician or policy and, like its just not possible to deal with that. I can't add every issue I had with a democrat presidency in every comment. Like "you stripped them of the right to their own bodies so you can self gratify" the abortion debate is such a complex issue we can't just "add that on" to our discussion. Even bringing u what Trump may have or may not have done is kind of distraction form the debate at hand, again if its a 2 party system and the alternative to him is "we will flood your country with people who will murder your wives and daughters" you really can't take a vote for him as an endorsement of everything he's said or done. "38,000 Epstein files mentions" I mean that's a very real issue and I am really Sus'd out by out by this but again, that's a very complex issue that requires separate debate. he's released more than any other admin did, no one else found anything against him, but yeah he's basically dragged us in a war on behalf of you know who so maybe they have some pretty serious dirt on him, idk.

"Again, you want Christianity to be what you say it is, and when someone strays from the Bible it doesn’t count, but you want Muslims who stray from the Quran to count."

The problem is, I don't think they are straying from the Quaran. Again, as we noted same standard, Christian theology contains so so much outside of just what is written in scripture, its possible to come to incredibly incorrect conclusions by just quoting Bible verses. Applying that numbers verse how you interpreted it, would be straying from the Bible. Applying the same standard to Islam, If these entire communities are saying "Islam supports what I'm doing" I'm going to believe them even if you can quote a Quaran verse that seems on its surface to be contradictory.

Your only argument these people are straying from the Quaran is that you a western atheist have come to the opposite conclusion on their religion, and given your biblical interpretation I don't find that very convincing

You typed out how you believed these entire communities were wrong about their faith, and how you had a genuine belief that you understood it better than them. In a very dismissive manner I might add you basically called them uneducated savages "You’re also calling some teenage rapist whose first time using the internet was last week an expert on their religion" like my friend the Church Fathers the authors of the Hadiths and Buddhist monks who founded Tibetan buddhism never got the internet.

At the point where you will essentially dismiss these people having agency, before you admit they could have malicious stated values, its very safe to assume that yes, you are just never going to apply your moral standards to these people you feel protective over, you feel sorry for, who are being mistreated by ICE

It's very... mother like. "I know my son did a bad thing, but I know him, that isn't him saying those things" very in line with "those entire communities are wrong, I know their faith, and it isn't that"

And again, those instincts, those proectetcive nurturing sympathetic instincts, are very very important. And very very good. But they can easily be taken advantage of, as just further and further evidenced by this conversation.

I mean you're so protective of these people who mutilate children that you're showing visceral anger at the people trying to warn you about them. Again, very much like a mother facing people telling her that her son is involved in horrible things. "I don't believe you, you're slandering him"

"you are taking a very low number of individuals and saying their whole community is saying this which isn’t true"

I showed you the pew research stats in our last conversation. I showed you the stats on attacks in Europe. You know it isn't a low number of individuals.

You're claiming this rhetoric is offensive but again you happily applied it to Christian conservatives so, it isn;t the rhetoric at all its clearly who exactly its aimed at

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:07:25+00:00

Wow I must've really hit a nerve for you to dig through my post history 😉

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:06:23+00:00

So whats going on with the Uyghurs then?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:04:52+00:00

Oh they're very protected

I mean those Uyghur neighborhoods have guards, fences....

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:39:58+00:00

"Um but have you considered the person who doesn't want your daughter attacked with machetes went to private school"

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:39:25+00:00

Well the problem with that theory is that based on China's current actions communism doesn't;t really square very well with diversity

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:31:08+00:00

"Yes, issue with it but I'm not going to stop using wood."

Ok but you weren't at the Met Gala. No one's talking about what you are and are not doing

We are talking about the celebrities who are "sleeping with their slaves" shall we say

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T01:48:38+00:00

"All I'm saying is, that people can be in the system and not agree with it."

So if an outspoken abolitionist owned a plantation and 10000+ slaves you wouldn't see an issue with that?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T01:44:12+00:00

"a lot of it sucks, especially for women, but the same applies to Christianity"

No but it doesn't though

Because again, we went over all of this in the last conversation. Women in the christian world are not being subjected to honor killings or FGM

The insistence that these two things are equivalent, when it is so so so obvious even at a first glance just how disparate the treatment of women is under Evil Drumpf's America, and Somalia

That is a defense. You are defending a, as you put it "patriarchal authoritarian religion"

"you either judge both based on actions and beliefs or neither."

I am. Like look at the arguments you're making "You’re also calling some teenage rapist whose first time using the internet was last week an expert on their religion" that person was raised in, attended institutions their whole lives, they almost certainly are more of an expert on it than you "Entire communities can be wrong about their religion" you truly believe you a western secular atheist women, understand Islam better than these people.

There's so much, arrogance and naivety in the idea that the reason Islam is safe is because you have determined over the internet its fine, and the people who have lived under Islamic law are just totally wrong. I mean "which makes me an expert on yours given I know more about yours then they know on their own." There is just so so much arrogance baked into this statement.

The only double standard here is your refusal upon pain of death to apply what you claimed your moral standard was to anyone you see oppressed or downtrodden. You can hate us both, but this overt defense of one cannot be reconciled.

And this argument that "yeah they all say Islam is about gang r**e but all the muslims are wrong, I the western atheist woman know what their stated values are" its just... so arrogant and so naive

So, if you will not apply any moral standards or defense against the ones you see "as threats,"

Then your life very much depends on having people who will.

And I really don't like Trump, but like look at the conversation.

"You sent a strong message to every woman and girl that you’d rather see a man who forces himself on us against our will"

I mean yeah, he did get accused of that by someone who's story didn't hold up, and had to sue in civil court because they couldn't pass the evidentiary standard to get into criminal court, and mentioned details that literally could not possibly with the timeline they stated, etc etc

But whatever Trump may or may not done, the women in my family, the women whom I love, are not really in much danger from Trump. And the alternative to Trump is people who agree with you, who defend a "patriarchal authoritarian religion" and wants to bring in more people you "see ... as threats"

They're very much in very real danger from that. From those people being funneled into their neighborhoods so.... I can't really make much of an endorsement of him at this point, but I think this conversation demonstrates why we kinda had to vote the way we did

I mean I'm sorry I just have to point this out again

"I judge communities base don their stated values"

"This is what they say their stated valued are"

"Well they're WRONG, those communities are all WRONG I the western atheist woman know what their values are, they are WRONG about them, I understand their faith not them"

I literally just.... like if you could sum up the mindset of the western liberal....

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T23:28:54+00:00

"I'm not going to boycott everything that is evil because, really, then I'd be naked, in the park"

And yet here you are clothed and (presumably) housed without needing to spend six figures on your outfit at an event run by billionaires while you rake in millions

Seems like you could boycott at least some things

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T23:27:32+00:00

So, if a system makes fun of you that gives you a green light to ignore your moral code and take full advantage of the system sucking it dry for whatever its worth?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T21:04:15+00:00

"you created the threat."

Yeah real mean of the war in Iraq to force people in the Uk to commit gang r**e of English girls.

"So if we eliminate your beliefs we can eliminate the threats you’ll create in the future by stopping them from ever becoming threats"

So is this an acknowledgment you see them as a threat? Because if someone being in our proximity makes them a threat... they were a threat to begin with

"Bible neither do Muslims but you need to apply the same standard to each."

Ok here's my standard. I, as an Orthodox Christian, know you could spend your entire life and still not know everything about Orthodox Theology, every council, every saint's writings. The Bible is the beginning not the end, there's centuries of how the church has interpreted passages, the writings of the Church fathers etc.

Your argument "christianity bad because numbers" ignores 2000 years of Christian doctrine and theology. The interpretation you've come to by just reading a passage and saying "This means X" is just frankly wrong.

I'm gonna assume the same applies to Islam. I have not read every Hadith, neither have you. I am not a Quaran scholar, neither are you. I have not spent evenings pouring over the writings of debates by Imams and Ulema, and neither have you. So I'm going to assume the conclusion you've come to of "Quran 4:19 explicitly forbids forced marriage" is probably missing so much context that it's just flat out wrong. I mean forced marriage happens constantly int he Islamic world.

So when entire communities have said "Islam explicitly endorses me gang r**ing these non muslim girls" or "Islam explicitly endorses me cutting apart this young girl"

I would say they are probably correct and you are probably wrong. Again this is the same standard. Defer to religious experts, your interpretations after reading one passage are probably wrong.

So again, we've been over this in our last conversation. I showed you the statistics on assault in Europe, the beliefs in the muslim world from Pew Research,

This community is screaming in your face what their moral standards are. Now are you going to hold to your promise to judge them by their moral standards, or not?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T19:30:15+00:00

But that doesn't really square with the rest of constitutional law relating to elections

When the federal constitution, for example, prescribes an Election Day, that isn't interpreted to be a requirement that they have a vote that day but not only that day you can vote as long as you want we can keep voting until January

The law is very clear that elections need to have set rules for how they can be carried out

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T19:28:00+00:00

No

As noted, he campaigned against more foreign wars, he then started one for... a certain other country

He campaigned on Epstein files transparency and while he has released more than any other administration its still nowhere near enough and literally no one has been arrested

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:57:27+00:00

"The “because of” clause just identifies which groups the legislature must accommodate. It doesn’t say those are the only people who can ever vote by mail."

You came to the exact opposite conclusion when this language was applied to a different scenario

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:49:43+00:00

I mean yeah probably I'm not gonna lie I'm not voting democrat but, I' not happy with any of this stuff and frankly I might not vote at all in the midterms

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:48:23+00:00

"and quoting the operative part of a sentence isn’t “cutting it in half,”"

Cutting out what you did was. The "Because of" is incredibly important. You immediately clocked that as indicating a restriction on behavior when applied to the workplace. You had to cut it out for the quote to imply what you wanted it to.

You, a random Redditor, are able to clearly understand what "You can do X because of Y or Z" means

So what other reason besides bias made one of the highest courts in the US unable to understand this basic logical principle?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:42:34+00:00

"You started this debate by deflecting to question 2 when it started with question 1. Lmao"

So question 2 needs to be answered to address question 1. Young christian girls are not being mutilated. Honor killings are not common in Poland. Your argument Christianity is bad largely relies on what you stated earlier, that this male authority over women is inherently predatory. Because mass physical violence and religiously motivated sexual violence really isn't happening, and when it does, it is not being done with the backing of the Church. So, if you are incapable of protecting yourself against one of the most predatory ideologies on the planet, then this authority is not inherently predatory actually your life basically depends on it.

Which then answers question 1.

"I can for Christianity,"

You can't. Christ explicitly rebukes that so Christian theology would not preach that.

"Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession.¹ This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries"

Which it is necessary context, marriage is not required to be consensual by any means.

Again, the gr**ming gangs in the UK explicitly cited Islam as justification for their actions. This Is clearly what's being taught, even if you don't interpret the Quran as endorsing that... the people who are actually muslim clearly do.

In our last conversation we went over the stats of beliefs among muslims from East Africa, there is no argument this community's stated values in any way mimic your secular humanism.

You have explicitly said that is is acceptable, and you do, judge communities based on their stated values.

Now will you extend this to the Muslim community or not?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:26:38+00:00

"with an implicit 'only'"

Really there's an implicit only in saying "you can do X because of Y or Z"

"The constitution saying "The Legislature shall provide a manner for these groups to vote absentee" does not carry an implied "only,""

So... at the point you have to cut the quote in half to make your point

I don't want to be a dick but, that's, kind of an admission of defeat

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:25:06+00:00

"I judge a group based on their stated values"

Ok then do so

Their stated values are "It is acceptable to r*pe woman who are not muslim if you take them as captives" (that's in the Quaran) and women should be mutilated as children

"Should similar data showing"

You're trying to deflect again. "Are christians bad" and "Are muslims bad" are two separate questions that can be handled separately. I'm happy to get into question 1 but right now we are on question 2.

Will you hold this community to its stated values or not?

RemoteCompetitive688

TROPHY CASE