Jesus's entire ministry on earth was rebuking the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees, right to their faces, calling them liars, hypocrites, prideful, sinful, children of satan, a den of vipers, murderers and thieves, unworthy of the kingdom of God. He flipped their tables, whipped them, and threw them out of the temple. He pissed them off so much they conspired to murder Him, but Jesus had so much public support they could only snatch Him in the middle of the night. And, Revelation paints how brutal Jesus will be toward His enemies when He returns.
That was my point entirely.
You're displaying that you're not reading, as this was directly addressed a few times in my previous replies. Why even continue a conversation if you're not even bothering to listen? Just go talk to yourself in a corner, as how much you're willing to partake.
The fact that you kept trying to drag it in every direction possible
Oh look, another display of "I didn't read anything that disagreed with me, and I'm proud of it" line of argumentation. I directly addressed your points, and connected it to the relevant related topics.
just to avoid the fact that you couldn't beat it
This was also directly addressed in previous replies, which you didn't read. Congratulations on your impediment, I guess. You seem to be proud of it.
and have long since started talking just to stroke your own ego.
Oh look, ANOTHER topic directly addressed in previous replies. Engaging a debate to the bitter end, even with an unwavering opponent, holds great merit. But, you are entirely afraid to do this, because you, your ideas, and your arguments are weak, which is why you become so hostile to anyone who disagrees with you, why you refuse to read anything in contradiction to your position, and why you constantly use logically fallacious arguments.
Including now when I openly admitted to ceasing to read your spiels, you continue to write them.
Another admission and prideful declaration of your own failings, with another topic directly addressed in previous replies.
So I'll repeat, please do kill yourself.
Your positions are so weak, and so are you, that you want anyone that disagrees with you to commit suicide. Out of the preponderance of what lies in the heart, spills forth from the mouth. By your own words, you reveal yourself, and what lies in your heart is poison, hubris, vitriol, and unrighteous hatred.
To answer your demand: no. I will not. I do not acquiesce to your demands. I only answer to God, and you are not God.
Not for any grand reason, only because I hope you report me to Dom for it and he bans me for doing it.
I don't censor people who disagree with me. I don't report them. I don't block them. I engage them. Precisely for the reasons I mentioned previously, which you didn't read.
Because the idea of that is really fucking funny to me.
No it's not. You're not laughing. This angers you, deep down, which is why you keep replying. My responses anger you, which is why you became so hostile and vitriolic toward me, and why you've twice now told me to kill myself. Perhaps, if you get angry enough, something will actually snap in your head, and you might, by some miracle, be forced to self reflect and change. One can hope. But you don't show much promise in that hope.
Jesus, milquetoast?
Have you read the Bible?
The modern judaized Christian church certainly likes to portray Jesus as some peace loving pacifist hippy, but that is the opposite of the truth.
As for your last question, the only times I can think of is when the jews in power genocided the people they were ruling over. It's usually also combined with antisemitism laws and mass incarcerations of the people, or on the flip side, going full hedonistic libertarian paradise, to dull the populace with vice and sin, bread and circuses. Neither "solution" lasted very long, though.
Not including the spacing guild was the biggest story breaking change. By far. It fucks up literally the entire plot as spice is now basically just irrelevant space cocaine and Paul is incapable of forcing the emperor to abdicate. They could've fixed that in the second movie but they didn't.
I absolutely agree, but that's a problem for the second movie.
Changing Liet Kynes to a black woman and her not even being the mother of Chani is actually quite a significant change.
Agreed. It's not explicitly mentioned in the book, but it seems obvious that Paul and Chani bonded, in part, because both of their fathers were murdered by the Harkonnen and the Emperor.
They pretty much completely fucked up Pitr de Vries not only by making him a irrelevant side character but also by sending him to Salusa Secunda which doesn't make any sense as that planet is supposed to be the Emperors big secret but for some reason he gives the mentat of the Baron access to it.
I consider this a relatively minor change, as the first movie portrays it, the scene shows the harsh conditions of the planet, introduces the strength of the Sardaukar, and moves the plot along between the Baron and the Emperor. But you're right, that this scene isn't explicitly in the book. But, it's not lore shattering, as Piter is killed by the poisoned tooth by the Duke shortly after the Harkonnen retake Arrakis.
Then there's a lot of other fuck ups and details they simply didn't bother to include or important characters that got far too little screen time. But honestly it's been quite a while since I've seen the movie so I can't remember everything anymore.
That's definitely a criticism I have of the Villeneuve movies, too. If you add together the total runtime of parts 1 and 2, and compare it to the total runtime of the SciFi miniseries, they're almost identical, but the SciFi miniseries included almost all the content from the books, and Villeneuve's movies left a ton out, which destroyed the lore and story. It was purely to stroke Villeneuve's ego, too, as he loves his long establishing shots.
But Dune 2 is indeed significantly worse as that movie made the entire series completely unsalvageable.
This has been my argument. While Dune part 1 could've at least been salvageable by a much better implementation of part 2, the part 2 we did get was lore shattering. I'll post another comment I made below:
This movie is absolute subversive garbage to the author and his works. Every single time film makers "adapt" a work and think they know better than the author, they ruin it.
Chani was one of Paul's most ardent supporters. Paul and Chani's love is integral to all of the following Dune books, through their children. Herbert explicitly stated, multiple times, that the Fremen are extremely zealous and pragmatic, such that if any of them suspected Paul was using them for his own ends, they'd end him on the spot, take his water, and sleep well that night. For Chani, of all the characters, to be the one that doubts Paul, is subversion and ruination of the character, the Fremen, their ethos, the story of the first book, and all subsequent books. It's a spit in the face of Frank Herbert.
And for what? To insert the overt messaging of subsequent books, in the first book? For "empowering" female characters that were already empowered in the books? This directly contradicts the plan Frank Herbert laid out and what he wrote. Villeneuve tried to claim Herbert was unhappy with how his fans received the first book, not realizing his warning against blindly following leaders, which is false. Herbert laid out the plans for the first few books before the first was even published. He intended for the first book to mostly be a classic hero's journey, for the reader to be duped just as much as the Fremen, because Paul was entirely justified in his actions. The warnings against hero worship in the first book were extremely minor, and told from a post hoc perspective. To try to lay all blame on Paul, before he's done anything wrong, is attempting to moralize pre-crime, which other scifi rightfully points out to be repugnant.
And, through Paul's last words in the ending scene of the movie (part 2), it attempts to lay all blame for the galactic war at his feet, when the book directly contradicts that assertion. Paul, for a long time, had seen multiple paths forward, all leading to that galactic war, even if he died. He only manipulated events so that he, his mother and sister, and Chani could live, so they could have children, and a have semblance of happiness, and so he could gain revenge against the people who murdered his father and people. The Fremen were going to wage their holy war regardless of what happened. And on top of this, the movie tries to moralize to the audience that the Fremen are blameless, that they were entirely manipulated by Paul, trying to assuage all guilt they hold for their own enaction of that galactic war. This removal of guilt from the Fremen is even more subversive because Villeneuve, the producers, and casting directors hired exclusively non-white actors to play the Fremen (who weren't described as such in the books), which plays into the current political climate that non-whites are oppressed by evil Whitey (all the bad guys in the movies are White or Albino White) and blameless for all of their actions. Herbert was a nuanced author, and he never laid full blame on that galactic war at the feet of Paul. In fact, multiple times, Herbert said the galactic was was inevitable. Herbert let the reader think things through for themselves, to let the words and works speak for themselves.
I can't believe any Dune fan could forgive this garbage, much less enjoy it, simply because it has a shiny veneer.
What were the big lore breaking changes in part 1? It's not that I don't believe you, but I don't remember there being lore or character shattering changes in part 1 (relatively speaking), other than the insertion of diversity propaganda, which I mentioned in the above comment. They also changed Liet Kynes to a black woman, when that character was supposed to be a stand in for the author, a White guy. Leaving out the spacing guild in part 1 is fine, as I don't recall them making an appearance in the first book until the latter half, which I attribute as another lore breaking of the part 2 movie.
The lore changes in Villeneuve's Dune movies are catastrophic, and do irreparable damage to the characters, peoples, and all future storylines. I watched Dune part 1, and mostly enjoyed it, as the lore changes are relatively minor in PT 1, until I realized I was watching Hollywood subversion, because they made all the bad guys White, or even Albino White, and made all the good guys non-white. I refused to watch part 2, and everything I've heard about it has been horrible.
If you want a faithful Dune adaptation, the closest is the SciFi miniseries.
Agreed. This only happens because the creatives behind a show, or any story medium, don't properly hammer out the details of the story before hand. They "wing it", which creates all manner of problems in the telling of the story, creating contradictions in the story, lore, and characters. It's like trying to release a book before it's finished being written, or even planned out. It invites catastrophe.
On the other hand, a properly laid out and planned story, if told well, almost universally is enjoyed more than one not planned. A properly planned and executed story plants seeds in the story, mirrors and foreshadows, metaphors and allegories, lessons upon lessons, subtleties and nuance, which upon reflection of the story, or future readings, makes the story much more rich. But, most writers nowadays, at least in Hollywood, are incapable of doing that.
When it first aired, I loved the BSG remake. Upon subsequent viewings I've enjoyed it less and less. It has some amazing parts to it (the space battles and music is amazing, and some of the storylines), but it gets incredibly nihilistic and depressing, with tons of needless character drama and "shocking twists!!!", lots of "are we the baddies?" critiques of humanity, and "the cylons are victims too!" relativist bullshit, with allegory to modern events that have all the subtlety as a sledgehammer to the face, just to pad out the story.
The same thing happened with the TV show Vikings. Subsequent viewings of the show has made me hate all of the characters, as they've done needlessly stupid and evil things purely for drama. It was shows like this that were stepping stones to the "morally gray" slop that we have everywhere nowadays.
I loathe that form of story telling. They authors of this poison hide under excuses like "our characters are complex", to justify their obvious intent to paint good people as bad, and evil people as good, to depress and brainwash the audience with ugliness, evil, and lies, to take away our heroes, to take away the characters we're supposed to emulate, to take away the virtues we're meant to embody, and to take away the lessons we're supposed to pass on, through our stories.
A genuine question is raised by your comment, in context of the OP's topic.
Traitors are more dangerous than enemies at the gate, so should be dealt with more quickly and harshly. By that same logic, should falsehoods and mistakes be corrected among our own first, or should we direct our ire primarily at the out-groups? Just curious what ya'll's thoughts are. By focusing on the out-groups first, we tackle problems from the most disagreeable downward, but by focusing on the in-group first, we tackle dissent within our own ranks first. This isn't inherently an either/or scenario. Just wondering which is more important to y'all.
All the Muslims in the West, right now, wouldn't even be here if not for open borders, mass immigration, the Kalergi plan, the demonization of White people to accept this poison, and the complete subversion and corruption of all of our foundational societal institutions which have control over all of this.
Muslim invasions of White lands largely stopped after the crusades and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Muslims messing with American lives largely stopped after we kicked the shit out of the Barbary Pirates (propped up by the Ottomans). Many modern Islamic terrorist attacks (like 9/11) have been false flags perpetrated by our own government, or "our greatest ally", to get the American public to support the global war on terror, the Patriot Act, and an ever expanding police tyrannical state. All of the Middle Eastern "refugee" crises were created wholecloth by U.S. warmongering in the Middle East, largely on behalf of Israel and bankers, where those refugees were specifically funneled into Western nations by NGOs like HIAS, to continue to enact the Kalergi plan.
You don't solve a problem by tackling the ancillary issues. You go after the source of the problem first.
is his echochamber so good that he never heard any real argument against his ideology?
Most normies, left or right, have never heard the actual arguments against their globohomo propaganda positions. They've only heard caricatures and strawmen of our arguments and positions. Their positions have never been challenged or questioned, so they and their ideas are incredibly weak, and easily picked apart and rebuked.
This is because race realists, antisemites, White collectivists/nationalists, and Nazis (REEEEEEEEEE!) have largely been censored off of mainstream platforms since the implementation of said mainstream platforms (like Facebook). It's just that the evil has become so blatant, the world has gotten so bad, that even normies are noticing, and giving ear to the voices of the only people who've been proven right, over and over and over. So, the red pills continue, and increasingly accelerate as the current trends continue.
The enemies of globohomo kept getting censored into niche spaces, but as the purity death spiral of globohomo continued, more and more people kept being pushed into those niche spaces, for increasingly small infractions of wrong think, exposing more people to the truth. And then, our numbers got large enough, people became brazen enough (what do we have to lose at this point anyway?), and a few globohomo missteps (like Elon eliminating most of the censorious bastards at Twitter), has allowed the truth to be spoken in mainstream spaces by increasingly large crowds of people who are getting increasingly and rightfully pissed at how we've been constantly screwed over, even by our purported "allies".
Good, that's the entire point. You finally got it. Everything else you've said here is completely useless blubber because this was the entire point.
Then you missed the point entirely. I said that, as a caveat, because we can't be absolutely 100% certain he was involved.
However, we can't be absolutely 100% certain about most things and people in life. We can't be 100% certain that a convicted murderer is going to murder again, but we lock him up (for one reason) to protect the public, in any case. Intelligence and wisdom isn't just the ability to absorb that information, but to use it to deduce other facts, to draw accurate conclusions from limited data, by using recognized patterns and applying those patterns to other things which display similar connections. The more intelligent and wise a man is, the more he can accurately deduce from less and less data.
Why do you think "crazy", "whacko", "fringe", "insane" conspiracy theorists have been right about so many things the last several decades? We haven't been proven right because all of these conspiracy theories are confirmed on the nightly news, but because we could, and can, infer a lot from what the people in power have done, what they've said, what they believe, who they hang out with, their repeated patterns of behavior, what they've been caught doing in the past, and what they're currently up to right now.
The other mistake, associated with your point, is that you think we need to be 100% certain to act or to judge. That is absolutely false. If you're waiting on 100% certainty to "do the right thing", you'll be waiting forever. The only thing that we can ever know for certain is sound logic. That's it. Everything else is up for debate. Even the very reality we exist in could be entirely fabricated or manipulated, from old philosophical arguments from Descartes (powerful demon/entity manipulating our senses) to the more modern simulated reality postulate. This is because we, as humans, are finite, mortal, and imperfect (with a few exceptions not relevant to this specific debate). We can't know everything, and what we do know is up for interpretation, based on the limited data we have, which can alter our conclusions. Your tacit assertion that we can't pass judgment without 100% certainty necessarily results in good men becoming apathetic and inactive in the affairs of everything around them, refusing to cast judgment or act, purely because of the foolish fear that they might be wrong, even if that chance is infinitesimally small.
I read little else of it, because its obviously more bluster to hide the fact that you have no further substance to your point but conjecture.
I already showed that you don't care about the length. You only care that I disagree, and only use the length as a straw to grasp at any way to criticize me. You levy rules against me more harshly than you levy against someone that agrees with you, which makes you a hypocrite in this. And, just because you disagree, doesn't mean my arguments have no substance, or that it's pure conjecture. Our feelings have no bearing on truth, and your feelings are obvious.
I did see the words bad faith in it, which is funny given how much you've insulted my character both directly and through your assumptions about me that now you care about respectful argumentation.
I used your own words and arguments, to discredit your own words and arguments, and to accurately infer who you are and what your motives are. I pointed out where you're being hypocritical and false, where your outward stated goals are antithetical to your behaviors and beliefs. I disparaged your character where it deserved to be disparaged. No amount of "nu uh" will change that.
But you are right I stopped actually trying days ago because both of our positions and thoughts weren't changing and it was obvious.
You don't want to continue this debate because you can't. You don't want to. You'd rather die than ever admit being wrong. You'd rather cling to your beliefs like an anchor, letting them drown you, than ever self reflecting and changing.
Actually the full sentence was originally "...and I hope you kill yourself." But after a few minutes I realized that was overt and went back and editted it out.
I noticed you only said "overt", and didn't say "uncalled for" or "cruel". So, you'd rather I die, because I disagree with you. Absolutely incredible, and you purport to be the moral and good person in this? Your positions are so weak that if they meet one iota of scrutiny and disagreement, you'd rather your opponent die, or commit suicide, than ever changing your mind. This is yet another condemnation of your own character, sprouted forth from your own mouth. I'm not the one condemning you, I only point it out in words. It's you that condemns you.
Good catch though, you noticed the thought was halfbaked though I think given how much time you wasted despite knowing I was wasting your time, maybe you should as you have nothing else going on.
Debate, even futile debate, if truth is prioritized, is never a wasted effort. Good men, just like ideas, are honed and strengthened in challenge and hardship. Weak men, just like ideas, have never been challenged, and both shirk away from all hardship, and lash out at any who dare put them through it, like you are.
I think he got banned, started a new channel, uploaded to that for a while, somehow got his old channel reinstated, and now uploads to that again. I'm not 100% certain, though.
The foundational philosophies of leftism, which is just a political extension of globalism, which is run by a specific set of people, always results in a few things.
They're quite literally satanists, whether they admit it or not (for the string pullers), whether they know it or not (for the puppets). Satan thought he knew better than God. Satan is the antithesis of God, God's will, and all the truth of creation. Truth, beauty, and goodness are of God, and since satan is the antithesis, lies, ugliness, and evil are of satan. Whether you're Christian or not, that's what these people believe. Atheism was just a stepping stone to unChristianize the West and get us to embrace their inversions, and eventually open satanism.
Leftist/globalist philosophies always result in lies, ugliness, and evil. The people who believe and practice those beliefs make themselves ugly, they espouse obvious lies, and they practice obvious evils.
Their art is ugly. Their architecture is ugly. Their men are ugly. Their women are ugly. Their TV shows and movies are ugly. Their stories and lessons are ugly. Their characters and motivations are ugly. Their plans, their words, their ideas, their hearts, the fruits they bring forth, it's all ugly. And it's because they've rejected truth, and think they know better.
Because your usage of it is deflection to avoid actually thinking about my point,
Your point is deflection. You provide excuse after excuse, apply your rules for judgment and guilt unevenly.
so instead you retreat to emotionally charged buzzwords
Wow. The abduction, trafficking, raping, torture, and murder of kids is "emotionally charged buzzwords". So, you would have me avoid the core issue itself, of what Epstein was involved in, what everyone who knew him knew what he was involved in, you would have me avoid using the actual words to describe the actual crimes that took place, avoid the words to describe the age of the actual victims, purely to appease your hypocritical stance that I not use "emotionally charged buzzwords"? Why? Because it makes your position look bad? No. I refuse to adjust my accurate language to appease your hypocritical demand on how to discuss this topic.
It's you who doesn't want to discuss the accuracy of what's involved, because you know that if you did, you'd have to actually admit how repugnant it was, and how repugnant everyone involved was, how repugnant everyone is who helps to cover it up.
and philosophy essays repeated over and over hoping the next time it will work. Its literally designed to mindkill anything but seething hatred to prevent any pesky logic from interrupting your struggle session.
You don't decry length. You only decry length that disagrees with you. Then, you grasp at straws and throw anything you can against the wall, hoping something sticks, purely because you disagree. This means that you argue in bad faith, that you apply harsh rules against your opponent that you don't follow yourself. This, again, makes you a hypocrite. "Logic"? Logic dictates that the discussion be accurately described, that rules be levied equally and fairly, that the logic be applied consistently. You have not done this, which is why I keep coming back to these core issues, in the (apparently vain) hope that you would see reason. But, as you uncovered in your previous reply, you're entirely biased in your views, and that bias has thoroughly clouded your ability to have any kind of rational or logical discussion surrounding this topic. "Seething hatred"? It is you that admitted to being patently biased because of your hatred toward women.
Shit I'm caught. Its not like I have been saying that out loud, openly for so long that even on the Leftist shithole that is KIA1 I had the "flair" of Misogymaster.
To be fair, I understand the criticisms of modern women, or even women in general. Women have been thoroughly corrupted by globohomo and feminism. It's not like I'm attempting to white knight women here. I know their faults better than most. But, I only bring up your hatred of women, because you're using that as a clear bias in this discussion. You even openly gave defense of Harvey Weinstein because of your bias, which resulted in you completely skirting around the issue entirely, of the connections between Weinstein and Epstein, of how everyone who knew them knew what they were involved in. But, you skirted around that issue by giving open defense of Weinstein, because of your bias against women.
You really are bad at this, my guy. I said what he did isn't illegal enough to be imprisoned in my point of view. That has no statement on morality, because asking the government to control morality down to the smallest detailed interaction is a dangerous game I don't wish to play.
False dichotomy. It's not an either/or choice. The choices aren't "libertarian hellhole where all immorality and crime is permitted" versus "religiously zealous police state where all morality and minutiae is dictated by the state". You seem to skip over the entire width and breadth of all of reality, where the issue exists, jumping to the furthest extreme, to "debunk" what I was saying. I'm bad at this? Have some self reflection of what you just said.
Furthermore, you are, again, resting your entire position on legality, which of itself is a losing and false issue. Not all that is right is legal, and not all that is wrong is illegal. If you, a supposed rational man, can't determine what is right or wrong, beyond what laws written on books say, then you are completely lost. You tacitly suggest we appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. And, you couch it in a repugnant view that you think all of the modern degenerate sex isn't harmful to people or society. And, again, your view is entirely dictated by your bias/hate against women. You don't want to cast blame against people like Weinstein, because you seem to tacitly approve of him hurting women, and in turn, condone the harm of your own people.
Because it creates guys like you, who take incredibly vague statements and treat them as 100% hardened truth that no possible alternative can exist by. And then they feel completely justified in forming lynch mobs off their wild assumptions.
You do realize I brought up those morality laws to show to clear correlation between the overturning of those previous morality laws, and the degeneration of society? I'm not arguing for a tyrannical hellscape where all actions are decided by the state. I've never argued that. Feel free to dig into my timeline (going back years), to see where I've ever argued for that. Quote me. I dare you.
You can make all the differentiations you want between legal and moral, but that is the very antithesis of what our Founding Fathers made this country on and is literally anti-American. And that isn't a label I use lightly.
You apparently didn't know the Founding Fathers very well. They intended the U.S. to be dictated by Christian morality, for Christians and by Christians, for White people and by White people. They didn't want every religion under the sun to become citizenry of some amorphous U.S. blob. The problem lied between Christian denominations, not between different religions entirely. They also ONLY applied that rule to the federal government, not upon state or local governments. Your (mis)understanding of this issue is at fault, not mine.
Furthermore, morality can absolutely be dictated by law. That's literally what all laws are, the criminalization of what's immoral (wrong) and legalization of what's moral (right). How in the hell would you dictate laws and legality in your world? Relativism? Truth is absolute, so is logic, and so is morality. People's understanding of those foundations may change, but the truth does not. There are clearly superior and inferior forms and understandings, governances, and laws. And, ever since we got rid of the most basic of moral laws, our nation, our civilization, has turned to shit. By the fruits a thing/person can be judged, and your defense of libertarian hedonism is a condemnation against you and your argument.
You truly think too highly of yourself. If a retard like you is ever proud of me, I'll have to reconsider myself.
I self doubt always. I challenge my own ideas all the time. That's why I engage in these long form debates. I actually like to be proven wrong. I like to learn new arguments and ideas, because it enables me to better learn and understand truth. Weak men hold weak ideas, because neither is challenged. Look through my profile. I've done these long form debates many times. I don't shirk away from them.
Just because I accurately ascribe to you your own beliefs, your own failings, and the results of what you espouse, is not a reflection upon me, but of you. You, of course, disagree, but disagreement does not equate to me being false. Our views on the matter do not change the truth. Just because I disagree with you does not make me "retard(ed)", or "think too highly of myself".
You talk endlessly about truth, but literally all you do is make grand assumptions and narratives to fit the schema you want to use
What grand assumptions did I make? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong? What schema did I use? Point to them. Be specific. Why are they wrong?
and then deny any possibility that doesn't fit that strict set.
Well, uhhhh, yeah. That's quite literally why I believe what I do, and don't believe what I don't. I judge based on that. How else am I supposed to act and judge? It's also why I constantly challenge my own ideas, and seek opponents worthy enough to prove me wrong, and read other people's opinions, arguments, and evidence constantly.
I merely believe we don't know the truth yet.
Well, as to what we can verify, sure. We don't know, for certain, that Trump was involved. We don't have a notorized governmental form, a timestamped notarized governmental approved video with Trump literally "RAPING BABIES!". What I've been trying to point out, this entire time, is that we can infer a lot based on the available evidence, about how these people act, what they believe, the company they keep, and all of the relevant patterns that exist. By all of that standard of measure, Trump is guilty. And, given the cover up of the Epstein files his administration is currently doing, blatantly proves this. Even if you were correct, by some miracle of chance, Trump is still guilty of covering up the crimes of Epstein and everyone else involved. He was guilty of it during his first term, and he's even more guilty of it now, by actively covering it up, for "national security".
You are the worst type of fool.
That's only part of the sentence. The true form is "Because you disagree with me, you are the worst type of fool."
Why am I a fool? Why am I the worst type of fool? Be specific. When we truly dig down, it will be patently obvious that it's only because I dared to disagree with you, and point out your own bias and hypocrisy. If you actually look through my profile and look at all the other debates I've gotten in with people, you'll notice, just as I did, that most people are loathe to have their worldview challenged. People don't want to change their minds, no matter how many sound arguments, logic, and evidence you present them. They'd rather stick their fingers in their ears and scream as loud as possible. They'd rather denigrate and attack the person trying to teach them. They'd rather censor and kill the person who disagrees with them, than ever change their stance one iota. It's a shame really, but it's a repeated pattern of behavior I've seen in my own debates, and in debates between others. Truly, I don't know how most people actually change their minds, given the preponderance of evidence of how stubborn they can be to the most blindingly blatant truth. It seems most people would happily rather die, than ever to admit to being wrong, even on the smallest of issues.
On the contrary. I truly hope these liars, manipulators, and hypocrites keep talking. I hope they talk more. It reveals their heart. Out of what lies in the heart, springs forth from the mouth (paraphrasing the Bible).
The more these demons talk, the more people notice them. They're prideful and arrogant, so they can't help themselves but to boast and hang hypocrisies on every word they utter.
When the whole Pizzagate investigation ramped up, and people started finding weird satanic/saturn imagery in pizza shops all across D.C., links to Marina Abramovic, spirit cooking, and Hollywood, the instagram of James Alefantis, the Haiti debacle with Hillary Clinton's aides trying to abduct children after the earthquake, and the like, I'll never forget the deluge of stories the mainstream media came out with to "debunk" Pizzagate. Out of the tens of thousands of Podesta emails that were released by Wikileaks, they picked the most innocuous ones and trumpeted those, as if that was all of what the emails contained, completely ignoring all of the other repugnant stuff internet anons had found through the Pizzagate investigation by that point, the media claimed it was completely "debunked", and called anyone who disagreed a "conspiracy theorist", and other pejoratives.
I already had a low opinion of the media by that point, but it was then that I realized how boldly they would lie, and what manner of utterly repulsive and evil crimes they would help to cover up. I was reading those emails with everyone else, and doing research with everyone else. I saw it with my own eyes, and I was still shocked how brazenly the media lied about it.
There's only one solution for those people, for everyone involved, for everyone that knew and said nothing, for everyone that helped to cover it up. They all deserve the same punishment.
I did, I defend Pizzagate out loud to people to this day in my persona life. That has nothing to do with this other than you continuing to use the tactic of "BABY RAPE BABY RAPE" to try and emotionally charge your argument. Which is why you are trying to show it to me now too, because just saying it isn't working.
This is what Epstein was about. How could I deflect toward the core issue? Everyone that knew Epstein knew what he was doing. Everyone that knew people like Harvey Weinstein knew what he was doing. They let it happen. They openly bragged about it to the public. Why do you think raping babies is a deflection?
I don't. If women want me to care about them, they can hand back their ill gotten gains from feminism and then I'll gladly burn Weinstein at the stake myself for their honor.
Then, in your intentional apathy and malignance toward your own people, you would let evil people in power run roughshod over your people, and you, and everyone else you care about. You would have your own people atomized to the nth degree, to let us be corrupted and conquered, purely for your apathy. The fruits of your apathy are destruction. If you apathy was applied universally, all of civilization (even if it were good) would collapse in less than a year.
In fact, I got falsely MeToo'd during that initial craze, because an ex roommate was behind on her current rent and needed a sob story to buy her some time. Got the shit beat out of me by a lot of guys who really cared. Just an accusation and their neurons activated to anger, and when the lie came out she was still a victim and not a one came around to apologize for it....So I in fact have vested interest in not only not giving a shit, but maliciously demanding higher standards for these things.
Well, thank you for at least admitting your motivation. You're not apathetic. You actively hate women, and through that hate, justify your apathy toward your own people, and enable evil people to corrupt and destroy. You would let a wrong committed against you cloud your entire worldview, accepting positions and behaviors which are antithetical to the very conclusion you wish to reach, antithetical to the very prevention of the crime which colored your worldview. You hypocrite.
I've been of the belief he shouldn't have been imprisoned for a long time in fact, because of the aforementioned points I've made. I think his actions were at most disgusting but no less so than the vast majority of the same people who threw him down. But his is still a morally repugnant Jew who'd sell me for a cornchip, so I'm also not going to die trying to change minds on him.
Then, you indirectly answered my question. You do not view sexual immorality as an issue. You think "free" sex, whoring, prostitution, and porn are harmless, when they're obviously not. You give defense of repugnant and evil people, because you hate women, and through that, hate your own people. The very same people who do these repugnant things in Hollywood are the same people who do the repugnant things with Epstein Et al. They run in the same crowds, hold the same views, vote the same ways, they're all friends with each other, and know what proclivities they're involved in.
The only excuse I've made for Trump is that the evidence against him is weak and unconvincing to anyone who doesn't fall for Leftie level emotional manipulation. If he is on the list I won't be surprised, just disappointed in him. But you seem to need a full struggle session before you consider it acceptable.
I can partially agree, that the evidence against Trump isn't as strong as others, but the evidence still exists. Trump is a billionaire. He rubs shoulders with very powerful people. We've known for a long time that almost all very wealthy people are involved in these evils, or know about them and let them happen. Pretty much all of Hollywood, government, and the uber rich are involved. That's why I pointed back toward Harvey Weinstein, as a mirror to it, for all of the comedians, and actors and actresses, and late night talk shows hosts, and award ceremony acknowledgement speeches, that directly hinted or overtly mentioned what Weinstein was doing. Trump's statement of Epstein was no different. "Young" does not mean consensual age adults when talking about Epstein. Anyone saying otherwise is deluding themselves and giving unjustified defense for Trump.
My entire point has been "my mind isn't solidly made up because the evidence isn't there." And that's important, because its been 10 fucking years of them throwing every damning possible accusation at him possible to try and take him down. Including ones with a ton more credible evidence behind it, that ended up being false or overblown too. I'm sure this time though its completely as it seems, the wolf is right there man.
If Trump is innocent, then how come he, and his entire administration, are actively covering up the Epstein files, for "national security"? If Trump is innocent, then how come he, and his entire administration, are cracking down on "antisemitism", which would criminalize anyone criticizing the people responsible for these repugnant crimes, and the nation involved in running the operation?
Are you still unsure of Trump? What must Trump do to be guilty in your eyes?
You're also forgetting a very clear possibility, that Trump is merely playing the part of a false savior for the dissident right, as another layer of control, that all those attacks against him were pure political theater, just like pro wrestling.
But its all fine. I feel more secure in my position because if you had more convincing positions you'd have brought them. Instead you wrote a philosophy essay in response to your assumptions of my beliefs, and then repeated the same point over and over. And if/when it comes out Trump was on the list, you will still be retarded despite being right.
Feel free to remain proud in your position. In your pride and arrogance, you would reject the plain truth. Hopefully you don't, but I've seen that mistake committed far too often, even by good people, to be swayed by this circumstance. This issue isn't over. It's still ongoing. I will see what kind of man you are, whether you are capable of changing your mind, based on the continued cover up of this by Trump, or if you will, in your pride, continue to give excuse and defense of evil.
I am. He said the word "young" which could mean either or in these cases because there is a long history of both with that kind of degenerate elite.
I know, which is why I'm trying to correct your incredibly naïve assertion that Trump, or anyone discussing Epstein, would ever be alluding to anything other than kids. "Young", when talking about Epstein, isn't about girls or boys that are 18, or 19, or 20. It's referring to girls and boys who are 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, and younger. We know this. The entire Pizzagate investigation revealed the true horror of what was happening. It was that investigation which led to the arrest of Epstein. Did you not follow that internet investigation at all? I can share links for you, showing how repugnant it is, how young the kids were and are (although it'll probably have to be via private message or on ConPro, because this website, weirdly, has global censors to any links of it).
You're using your fake naivety as a shield, to protect and give excuse for Trump because of "plausible deniability", when it's obvious to absolutely everyone that Epstein wasn't trafficking people of consensual age. If he was, at most he could be charged for is prostitution and pimping. There's more than enough adults of consensual age willing to commit sexual acts for money. That's not what Epstein was involved in, and everyone that knew him knew what he was involved in.
Adult women are allowed to be retarded and suffer the consequences of being "free." That includes the right to be preyed on to make more money than most of us combined ever will. I literally do not care about them.
You're so willing to give any defense of Trump you provide even more defense for known predators, sexual degenerates, subversives, and corruptive and destructive influences and people upon society. You "do not care about them"? I do. I absolutely care about what my enemies are doing, what crimes they're involved in, what kinds of degeneracies they're pushing, what they're influencing or forcing other people to do, about the people they're manipulating and hurting. It's foolishness of extreme severity to give your enemies carte blanche to do whatever they want, purely because "you don't care", just because there aren't laws currently to stop them. There used to be such laws, but most of them have been overturned. Gee, I wonder why? Who could've possibly been involved in overturning our former laws dictating morality? What's happened to Western civilization after the morality of the West loosened to enable these evil people?
Not all that is legal is right, and not all that is illegal is wrong. If you entire defense of the subject is "well legality", you've already lost. Every institution of our civilization has been infiltrated, subverted, and corrupted by these people, including government, bureaucracies, the military, federal oversight and law enforcement organizations, courts, judges, lawyers, Congress, many state and local governments, the medical industry, pharmaceutical industry, schools, school textbooks, school curriculums, history, media, news, social media, food, entertainment, both sides of politics, and our political leaders. Do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate when your defense is "but legality", when these are the corrupt people writing the laws?
Furthermore, are you actually adhering to the globalist/leftist position that sex is harmless? Do you seriously think sex outside of marriage, that prostitution, whoring, "free" sex, and porn are harmless? We have the totality of the current world to show how harmful it is. Hypothetically, lets say Epstein was only trafficking and raping adults. Are you seriously suggesting that this is harmless? Are you so apathetic and numb to the evils of the world, that you don't care about the harms inflicted upon your people, to them, to us? Apathy isn't virtuous. It's inherently destructive. When too many become apathetic to the plight of their own people, nations and civilizations fall. We're in the midst of it. Your apathy is antithetical to your tacit want for a stable and healthy society.
You know, the same way that despite my point saying "rich powerful men are abusing their power to use legal but young women as objects" you have zero objection to that. You in fact care so little you just brush it aside to talk about something else.
See my above remarks. I absolutely care about it. It's just that not all crimes, or wrongs, or sins, are equal. Hierarchy exists, because differentiation exists. Your argument rests upon the false ideologies of relativism and egalitarianism, insisting that I believe these things as well, which is false. The sexual predation of minors is far worse than sexual predation of adults. You don't fight problems by tackling the least severe first. If your house is on fire, you don't start washing the dishes. You solve the most egregious problems first, and work your way down. But, just because egregious problems exist, doesn't negate the existence of less severe problems. Would you not also punish a murderer for committing rape? The murder doesn't negate the rape, purely because it was less severe? The predation of minors doesn't negate the predation of adults. One is more severe, but both are problems. Your apathy isn't an excuse for either.
I didn't. I said multiple times to other comments that he goes in the chipper too if its confirmed. You brought in weak ass evidence as if it was gospel and thought you could say "RAPING BABIES RAPING BABIES" and just win by leveraging emotion.
You didn't answer the question. Why do you forgive and give constant excuses for Trump, for openly acknowledging the repugnant crimes and proclivities of Epstein, but do not give equal leeway and constant excuse for people like Weinstein, who according to you, is less repulsive?
You don't want to answer the question, because you know it would shine a harsh and condemning light on your own feigned naivety and hypocrisy. You don't levy your views equally, which is what makes you the hypocrite here. Answer the question.
As for your own feigned outrage at my "RAPING BABIES", I only bring up that fact to paint the picture clearly, that there is zero doubt about what's being discussed here, what you are unwilling to acknowledge, because you know it would paint a harsh light on "your guy" (Trump). Epstein abducted, trafficked, raped, tortured, and murdered kids, and helped others do the same, for pleasure and/or for blackmail. You seem to be thoroughly missing this point, the totality of the crimes that were committed, of how many people participated and knew. But, given your words and arguments thus far, it's obvious you don't want to acknowledge by intention, not by ignorance.
But, if you wish, feel free to keep giving defense of people who knew about this. Thus far, Trump and his entire admin, has gone from one lie and botch to another with regard to the release of the Epstein files. They have not charged, arrested, or executed a single person who was implicated in the Epstein files, much less released a damned thing about the files. Oh, I'm sorry, they did "release it", to a bunch of zionist social media influencers, purely for a fucking photo op. Given the just announced news that they're going to censor the Epstein files for "national security", it's pretty much certain they're not going to punish anyone, just like all the other administrations that had power over this (including Trump in his first term), who knew it was happening, who let it happen, who defended it, who excused it, who covered it up, who killed people to keep it quiet. But, feel free to keep giving feigned defense of this, purely because Trump is "your guy". Doing so stains your soul, becoming a willing advocate and defender for the worst people of our times. I will have no part in it.
barely legal
We're not talking about barely legal girls. We're talking about kids, children, and even babies.
The point I am making is that Trump's statement has enough plausible deniability that he wasn't 100% confirmed knew Epstein was involved with actual minors as "likes em young" was pretty common at the time among the elite of anything from pedos to just "barely legal" ones. It was common enough that Oingo Boingo made a chart topping song mocking the problem in the 80s.
Do you apply this same excuse to everyone who knew about the casting couches and predatory hiring producers in Hollywood, like Harvey Weinstein? Everyone in Hollywood knew what he was doing, and let it happen. Many even made jokes about it on TV and on award ceremony shows. It was an open secret in Hollywood. Why do you excuse Trump, and the "friends" he kept, the open secret of the vile evils they committed, while (I assume) you condemn Hollywood for the same thing?
I'm not going to run around with you in a metaphor, when the reality of the situation is very simple. You're just making more excuses for why Trump and his admin aren't properly exposing this evil and punishing them.
Also, Bondi just said they're going to redact the Epstein files for "national security".
Well, yes. But, if you believe the official history of WW2, it makes perfect sense. This is why racism and antisemitism are the bedrock of the New World Order religion, tantamount to original sin, the worst and most egregious sin you can commit (but mostly if you're White). The Nazis, because they were racist antisemites, committed atrocities parallel to mass death events caused by disease (millions dead). So, "obviously", we must fight racism and antisemitism just like we do disease, to "save lives".
Take what you know of the people in power, how they act, what their repeated pattern of behaviors are, what they've been doing to us, and what they believe (not what they say), and apply it universally. It makes the world make a lot more sense, and you can cut through the bullshit and lies, through their words (almost invariably all lies), and figure out what their true agendas are, what they're hiding, and what their plans (present and future) are.
We know the people in power are liars. They've lied to us about literally everything (not an exaggeration). We also know both sides of politics are controlled by the same people, and the different political sides are used as a false choice dichotomy, a control mechanism arrayed against the populace, so that no matter which option we choose, we lose and they win. We also know they offer us false choice saviors, people we think will lead and help us, but constantly stab us in the back, and serve their true masters. We also know they control Hollywood, media, news, schools, textbooks, and history. They literally conjure their fake "reality" out of thin air, and try to convince us of the truth. They've been doing it for decades. They've committed numerous false flags, and pretty much every way we've fought for the last 100 years has been under false flag or false pretenses, all supported and pushed by every sector of society they control. If anyone dare speak out against it, they're censored, deplatformed, debanked, imprisoned, maligned, ruined, and/or murdered.
There are concrete ways to determine if an organization or leader is genuine or not. They all believe, speak, and act in the same ways. Use those metrics to judge. Stop believing anything they say, and measure them by their fruits. Out of the preponderance of what's in their heart, is the fruits they bare.
The victim, a White guy, died. And the NFL and home team tried to act like it was an "accident", and rallied behind the black murderer.