If the pope in infallible then Vatican 2 wasn't a mistake. You'll either have to accept the pope is fallible and thus Vatican 1 was a mistake or 2 wasn't a mistake and you ought to listen to your infallible master.
That's the issue with AI, it can't be monetized for long. It will become commonplace and free like a .rar extractor program.
I think AI companies have realized this and their only ploy is create an AI that demands so much hardware power to make that it can't be emulated for free but I have a feeling this bet is going to fail, which is why their second hedge seems to be to buyup all the hardware so people can't even run dedicated AI for free even if they wanted to. This may extend the timeline for how long they can charge for AI use but soon enough the information will be there for people to make and run their own free dedicated AI programs, which will be preferable because they won't be censored or tracked; however, the lack of control scares the government so they'll do all they can to make this not a reality.
And true popes are fallible, so Vatican I was a mistake.
I was always against Project 2025. I never supported Trump because it was obvious he was a jewish shill. You may have fell for it, I remember you loved Trump even though I posted shit about how Vance was the worst VP ever because he wants a bachelor tax and hates men without kids. You still wanted to support your man Trump. Their was that other guy on MGTOW who got it. Lines or something, he'd always post 10 page essays.
How dare you pretend to be on the side of men but then attack me for a wanting to lower men's taxes and get rid of anti-male laws that unjustly favor women. You are no friend of man. You are a friend of no one. You fight for the benefit of no one except the jews.
You don't have to. That's the great thing about lower taxes and lower government spending. You get to choose what you want to do! Isn't freedom great, comrade Stein?
Correct. Trump's tariffs were right but he didn't cut costs (which is why Musk bailed on him). Costs need to be cut by 80% now but at the least they could have cut 10%. He expanded spending which was the worst thing he could have done.
The worst part about medical costs is people think the solution is tax more and spend more when it's literally tax less, spend less and let all the old people be unable to afford their care. They need to die.
Someone needs to nail you into a hotel in Dresden and burn it down.
Guess what, in a proper country you're allowed to say that without going to prison.
How about we punish the people who actually burn the hotel down rather than the people who tweet about it.
So, why does society that favors women and is for women run by women not believe all victims? Are you saying the matrons of our society are actually fair and just? So, you love women running things since they get it right how you want it?
Of course all the problems will be blamed on Trump. It's always the classic problem we've been facing for decades. Even a total collapse won't change people's opinion. They'll say "if it weren't for Trump we never would have crashed". People are incapable, at a pure IQ level, to comprehend what's going on, which is why democracy is a terrible system.
The system can be fixed but I suspect they'll try all they can to avoid fixing it but also avoid letting it crash for another couple more decades or however long they can keep it going, which over the long term will cause far more harm than just fixing things or letting it crash.
No, the no fault thing is another distraction. No one wants to stay married to someone they don't want to be married to. What we need to do is stop giving incentive to not be married to someone.
Start looking at marriage like a contract and start analyzing the leverage either side has over the other. What you'll find is men had all their leverage over women removed thanks to the government and this is what destroyed everything. Now women have all the leverage, so what good is marriage? Women can get fat, not provide sex and leave at any time without notice then get REWARDED for it.
Stop rewarding women for leaving marriages and give men leverage over women in a marriage then you'll start seeing more marriages and children.
Women ARE NOT anywhere near as productive as men but the Civil Rights Act, DEI initiatives and SOCIAL PROGRAMS and GOVERNMENT SPENDING makes it such that man's natural advantages over women are cancelled out by the government. The government taxes men for their superior productivity and gives the benefit of this productivity to women. Why do women need men? They don't. A woman needs a strong government to steal from men, she doesn't need no man.
If you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying then let me spell it out a bit better. A woman goes to a public k-12 and gets an education. This is all paid for by taxing men. The woman then gets a student loan which is backed by the government and that backing is based on the taxation of men. Using this student loan the woman goes to post secondary school, let's say to become a social worker because she lacks the intelligence and capabiliy of being anything else. She now takes a 2-year program that has subsidized tuition (she isn't paying full tuition), thanks to the government taxing men to subsidize the tuition. After, she graduates, she gets a job working for a Not-For-Profit social group. This NFP is subsidized by the government to stay functioning and that subsidy from the government comes from taxing men. The woman is getting paid an income to be "independent from men" that has since she was 5 years old been entirely 100% subsidized and paid for thanks to the government taxing men.
If we remove ALL these social programs and government subsidies what then happens? Now, the woman who isn't actually very useful at anything starts looking for a man to marry and men now have their after tax income nearly double because they aren't being taxed to support these women.
Men pay nearly all the taxes and women receive nearly all the benefits. By doing this we've destroyed men's purpose to women and reduced any leverage a man might have in a relationship to ensure the woman marries him and stays with him.
Imagine if we removed 50/50 division of assets, we got rid of alimony and we got rid of child support. Imagine we stopped taxing men to give toward social programs that mainly benefit women. What would happen? Now, the pretty dumb girls wouldn't be going to school to get a worthless psychology degree so they can not need no man, these women will focus on making themselves exactly what men want so they can attract a man. In order to ensure the man stays with her, she'll want to get married and have kids with him because men are more likely to want to keep her around if she's raising his kids for him. The man, knowing she can't leave him and benefit from it won't fear having kids with the women anymore. The women knowing she can't afford to lose the man will ensure she doesn't get fat and she'll practice her blowjobs everyday watching how-to videos and getting practice dildos to make sure her man never wants to leave her because she now needs him.
This is how you improve family life and increase birth rates. You remove the government that women are using as a crutch right now to ensure they don't need men. We need women to need men or children won't happen and marriages/relationships will be an unhappy event (what's going on right now thanks to the government). Get the government out of relationships and you'll fix relationships.
Yes, banning immigration and deporting non-Whites helps a lot but it's not the only reason.
Men don't want relationships with women who can deny them sex and then leave for whatever reason, while getting half his stuff, alimony and child support. Why would any man take that risk for literally nothing to gain? So men aren't doing it.
Many women on the other hand already have all the resources they need from men thanks to the government's taxation of men and subsidies toward women so they would much rather fuck hot men (who won't marry them) rather than settle down with a stable good man who can provide (since the government does it for them).
This destroys birth rates.
China and India have low birth rates and you're telling me it's because of foreigners? It's not. The high trust thing is a scapegoat to ignore dealing with the bigger issue. Current tax laws, divorce laws and social programs make children pointless and unaffordable for people so they don't have kids.
Yes, definitely. Everything they were told worked out for them so they don't question it. When I say it doesn't work for me, they insist it must be a deficiency in the me rather than the system which worked for them. Their understanding of things beyond this is limited.
How does Christianity have anything to do with this? I thought the UK was the second largest Muslim country in Europe next to France?
The way you incentivize kids is to lower taxes, lower government spending, cut social programs, end alimony, end child support and end 50/50 division of assets.
These programs in the end end up just being a tax on good White people to pay for bad people. The overall impact on children is insignificant but good people pay more in taxes which leads to further injustice in society.
They are absolutely terrible programs.
Yeah, so not only did they reduce my salary but they reduced the value of my existing salary.
I earn $150k/yr. I would have been earning $300k/yr were it not for DEI unfairly pushing other people less qualified than me ahead of me. This isn't a guess either, I know first hand exactly how I was discriminated against for being a White male which led to an inability for me to advance my career.
Did you know Vatican 2 would not have passed had Vatican 1 not been first passed? Vatican 1 is as bad as 2. They're both trash.
Also, if you think Vatican 2 is wrong since it only passed because the Pope was considered infallible for religious matters, then you're actually tacking a crack at Vatican 1 too. That's because for Vatican 2 to be bad, you'd have to believe the Pope made a mistake in allowing 2 thus the Pope isn't infallible and therefore Vatican 1 is logically proven wrong if 2 is wrong. You can't hate 2 without also hating 1.
I'm the OP.
There was a stab at exaining what the YouTube video is attempting to explain in a book by a very good modern philosopher called "After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory" by Alasdair MacIntyre written back in 1981.
At the end of the day, the best way I can summarize is that people's fundamental understanding of what is good and what isn't differ, thus when people try to discuss why they are hurt by something bad to another but that other person doesn't fundamentally believe any of what is happening is bad because of different fundamental moral beliefs, they can't hear.
If I tell you: "omg, it's terrible that I'm being discriminated against for being White and it's not fair that I'm oppressed" but in your mind it is impossible for White people and especially men to be discriminated against or to be oppressed then what I just told you doesn't make sense to you. You can't understand it. What do you mean you're discriminated against? You can't discriminate against Whites. What do you mean White men are oppressed? The oppressors can't be oppressed.
The real reason discourse is breaking down though is one-side isn't being entirely honest with the other. My mother doesn't want to tell me she doesn't think White men can be discriminated against or oppressed and she especially doesn't want to tell me she thinks that's a good thing. She wants White men to be discriminated against and oppressed because she feels they deserve it because of the discrimination and oppression White men did to women and non-Whites but she won't openly say this so it sounds like we aren't understanding each other. It sounds like the boomers are out of touch.
The boomers aren't out of touch. They just hate you because their fundamental moral values have taught them that you are the bad guys. Now, we're coming up with ways to explain why boomers aren't understanding because it seems like they aren't but the boomers get it, they just don't want to reveal the fact they think you're a bad person. There's a clash on fundamental morality.
Another problem is what we're discussing is highly complex. That philosophy book I recommended is written such that if your IQ isn't over 120 you won't understand anything you read. These concepts are not for the average person. Most boomers aren't that smart (just like most people) so the average boomer doesn't really understand much of what we're discussing. I sure as hell know my mom doesn't, she's a bit of a bimbo. These average boomers were taught something, their kids learned something else from experience and the concept of what either learned is too complex for average people to properly discuss between one another so it leads to both sides thinking the other is out of touch. What I'm saying is we've entered a realm of communication that unless you're smart, you won't understand how to communicate now or you'll purposely be deceitful because you see who you're communicating with as your enemy.
No, it's genocide. When you refuse to give White people a country of their own you're killing White people hence genocide.
Ahh, Imp1, is that you?
I'm not saying lower birth rates are White genocide. I for one think lower birth rates are a good thing. White genocide is bringing in non-White immigrants to replace the Whites because of low birth rates since the elite want cheap labor, thus they need a higher population for their ponzi scheme economy. They'd rather replace all White people with non-Whites to ensure they get cheap labor thus genociding Whites rather than accept higher wages due to lower birth rates.
The state's laws have impacts on people and thus society which have led to certain outcomes in society where if these laws didn't exist the outcome would differ. To deny this is to deny reality. Are you living in a different reality?
White genocide is recognition that there are systemic laws having a negative impact on White people which have been systemically applied to all White nations thus it is intelligently orchestrated and is leading to the genocide of White people.
White genocide is real and if you don't believe so you should be banned from this website.
The birth rate thing has been an issue that has been identified and discussed on the right for years before Elon Musk ever discussed it.
His obsession with it is selfish, imo, because it's a way for him to justify all his baby mamas with jewish whores. "I was saving humanity by knocking up tons of jewish whores. I'm actually a humanitarian knocking up tons of jewish whores!" Musk also wants tons of cheap labor which is why he likes H1Bs. If the right isn't going to give him H1Bs then he needs tons of new homegrown slaves to depress wages for him. He doesn't tout the birth rate thing out of insanity. It's entirely calculated and self-serving.
I've done Ketamine before and like with all drugs, the effects that are written about online are often quite exaggerated or the levels of "abuse" they mention are far greater than what most heavy users are actually doing. Musk is clearly not in another world; however, we can say we absolute certainly that all leftists reject reality thus if the rejection of reality is "in another world": all leftists are in another world.
Don't see the problem.
I'll take a dozen coke fiends that watch rumble videos about lizardmen as long as they have good takes on politics over 100 straight edged leftists.
Imagine the kind of person who pays for pornhub premium... Probably boomers the government can extort best.