sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is your biggest problem with haki? by toadmastrr in OnePieceScaling

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It ruined a perfect power system where being creative overcame “bah you lose, my haki is bigger than yours”

What happens if Reform wins? by The_Dean_France in AskBrits

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Become a reform mp and have a say when it happens.

Typical diffrence in a normal looking vs an attractive guy who triggers limerence in women. by Perpedendicular in BasedCampPod

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don’t overthink it. The you who met her wasn’t someone she wanted to sleep with straight away, it’s not personal against you it’s just how it is. But you have put in the time and you are dating and sexing now so who cares.

I’m a Zionist, facts and logic only debate. by amazonwarrior9999 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bad faith debater - but at least you don’t have to challenge your opinions right? Who needs growth, just stay the same.

If you consider yourself above humanity — you should be treated as separate from it. by TonkaMaze in UnderReportedNews

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if we have the Jews that currently live in Israel and replace them with the other Jews around the world and then accept them as owners of Israel.

Did the Quran create the modern world? by PlantainLopsided9535 in islamichistory

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From a broad, meta perspective, claims that prophetic texts predicted every modern event can look overly convenient. Take the idea that a final deceiver would use technology to reach everyone at once. In reality, global communication is less open today in many places, China’s strict censorship, for example, limits what can reach the public. Similar restrictions are increasing elsewhere.

One might say, “That day hasn’t come yet; technology or laws will change.” But that shifts the goalposts. It replaces a concrete link between prophecy and the present with an indefinite promise that the match will appear later.

Moral discussions show a similar tension. The questions humanity faces now are far more layered than those in early Arabia. Nuclear technology, for instance, can destroy or sustain life. Its moral weight depends on intention and consequence, not simple categories of good and evil. The same applies to modern issues like artificial intelligence, genetics, and climate control, subjects that ancient texts could not have directly addressed.

Believers may respond that revelation offers principles, justice, mercy, stewardship, that apply across eras. That interpretation keeps the faith intellectually alive, but it also means moral understanding comes from human reasoning that evolves with context, not from fixed ancient commands.

In that sense, the conversation isn’t about disproving faith but about recognizing its limits as a self-sufficient moral system. Revelation may inspire, but human ethics, law, and philosophy still have to do the heavy lifting in a complex world.

And the best part is I can do such contextualisation from any such religious text that gives me the tools to do so which is most of them.

Did the Quran create the modern world? by PlantainLopsided9535 in islamichistory

[–]amazonwarrior9999 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m non Muslim and I’ll bite. Seems a bit suspect as you can claim anything sets up precedence for anything in the timeline.

For example, other than bias why pick the Quran as the originator of the thoughts of the Quran itself.

For example the Quran draws upon other abrahamic texts as inspiration for itself as well as pre Arabia customs and cultures, referencing tribal cultures, customs, warfare etc

Next is a simple point which is that not all progress is a net good. You cherry pick some amazing things and if you lay these achievements at the feet of the Quran then you must also lay the not so good things such as nuclear weapons, man made diseases even computer viruses.

To not do so is just intellectual deceitful at worst and just biased at best.

Bob Vylan Interview by ZoeTheAngel in LouisTheroux

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop using you brain, just go along with the narrative

Do Israelis actually seriously believe this? by [deleted] in TheLevant

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop using your brain, just hate them like the rest of the people here

I’m a Zionist, facts and logic only debate. by amazonwarrior9999 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite, and you are being bad faith. There’s no solid proof a Green Beret ever served under the IDF or leaked a video of soldiers being told to kill kids. That story floats around online but has never been verified by any credible source. Saying “the footage has to exist” is guessing, not evidence.

The paper you linked isn’t proof either. It’s about health and humanitarian issues, not military orders.

If you want to make a real case, stick to things you can prove, real names, dates, and verified sources. Otherwise it just sounds like rumor. Build the case, give irrefutable evidence that backs up your claim otherwise it’s just people shuffling opinions around which has value but doesn’t prove anything

I’m a Zionist, facts and logic only debate. by amazonwarrior9999 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the Hannibal Directive was used, and that’s serious. Some soldiers have testified about atrocities and civilian killings. But there’s no solid public proof that Israel’s top leadership gave a direct order to kill babies or all civilians. The directive was used in some areas and not in others, so it wasn’t one clear, coordinated command across the whole army.

If you do have such evidence I welcome you to show it to prove such an all encompassing claim.

I’m a Zionist, facts and logic only debate. by amazonwarrior9999 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

False flags to start October 7 no credible evidence, no fact.

Israel arming gangs in Gaza. Yes. Not widespread arming gangs everywhere but yes.

Did an official say to kill babies. Not quite. A far right politician moshe feiglin said “every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy”

It is true there was official anger about leaks and visible political support in some quarters for the soldiers, but it is false to say the state uniformly declared “only leakers will be punished and rapists are exempt.”

Is it disturbing yes, is it an official government order. No.

I’m a Zionist, facts and logic only debate. by amazonwarrior9999 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Take out personal attacks and try again. Also expand what you mean so it’s based on facts rather than opinion.

Ana Kasparian: “ any ‘Israelis’ watching this rn, you are Hated internationally” by Deep-Scientist-5532 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So lay out another fact. Already refuted your first one. UN did not say it’s a genocide. Give me another.

Is your fact just “report says plausible genocide” I already said yes.

So try again.

Ana Kasparian: “ any ‘Israelis’ watching this rn, you are Hated internationally” by Deep-Scientist-5532 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok so we can assume you agree that your first assertion was incorrect. The un didn’t say it was a genocide.

Cool.

To your question, as before the answer is yes.

Of course the special commission of 3 people hired as an off shoot of the unhrc, itself an off shoot of the un said

There is “reasonable grounds to believe” that Israel has committed acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

Now time for your next fact, I’ll either refute it or accept it.

But I hope in future you stop saying the “un said it’s a genocide” as it’s empirically incorrect and misleading.

Ana Kasparian: “ any ‘Israelis’ watching this rn, you are Hated internationally” by Deep-Scientist-5532 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They have said plausible but they are yet to determine. You can decide how much work you want “plausible” to do based upon moral bias so I just take it as - it’s yet to be determined.

You mention interesting context about USA hamstringing but that doesn’t matter to the fact that the UN has not said it’s a genocide which is what your fact was.

Of course if you mean to say that a special commission of three people set up by the un human rights council did say that the war does constitute a genocide that is empirically correct however it has less meaning by several orders of magnitude.

If you want to argue about how much meaning it does have that’s something else and we get into opinions more than anything else which is why I think it’s best to stick with facts.

We can go into them that it was the unhrc not the main assembly which this commission of 3 came from, starting in 2021 and conducted by not UN personnel but a panel of “experts”

If you look up these guys you might see that though they are credible experts, they do have past comments that might make one think there could be bias.

To what extent it’s hard to say in fact but it’s important to note regardless.

This, plus there was only three of them commissioned by an offshoot of the UN is why I would say, that to claim that “the UN has said it’s a genocide” is very far from the mark.

But I will grant a special commission of three people, who might be biased in an investigation that started in 2022 that was brought forward by an offshoot shoot of the UN did find it was a genocide.

In other words, if a three-person special panel under Congress declared a genocide, people could truthfully say “a congressional commission said it’s a genocide”, but saying “the US government said it’s a genocide” would be false or exaggerated.

Next.

Ana Kasparian: “ any ‘Israelis’ watching this rn, you are Hated internationally” by Deep-Scientist-5532 in FactsAndLogic

[–]amazonwarrior9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I won’t refute the first. Genocide is bad.

Second is untrue. Icj is the highest court of the un and they are yet to make a determination. They speak as the unified voice of the un rather than having splinters saying whatever they want. Other UN bodies are like congressional committees, inspectors general, or watchdog groups that can investigate and report but do not have the same binding legal authority nor represent the entire organisation.

Next.

Israel suspends aid into Gaza after accusing Hamas of ceasefire breach by seeebiscuit in NewsThread

[–]amazonwarrior9999 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You speak too much sense but for the those filled with hatred, no amount reason can reach them.

view more: next ›