I wrote a meta-analysis in April that showed masks are basically useless, with a negligible benefit at best (the right type of masks worn properly, etc.). Practically speaking, almost nobody is wearing them this way anyways, so they're basically useless. This has been known for a long time. Still people are so easy to manipulate. Nobody seems to be willing to do their own research anymore.
If he was well-informed ahead of time and he still decided to get it, that just makes this sound even more like a purity test. We’re now against anyone who gets the vaccine, even just the first dose? No matter the reason?
No thanks.
Getting the vaccine at first doesn’t make you weak, it just makes you uninformed. Even so, he remains “unvaxxed” according to their standards and is currently taking a stand, so give it a rest with the purity tests.
This is sickening. Is this really what is being sold to people as "heroism" nowadays?
EDIT: This reminds me of that scene in one of the recent X-Men movies where Logan stabs a guy in the hand with a poisoned arrow for shooting a bear with a poisoned arrow and not tracking it down to put it out of it's misery. I'm sorry, but in no world is killing a man just recompense for killing a bear. They tried to spin it as a cool moment but it totally took me out of the movie.
Yes, I know you believe that, and you’re wrong. Gay marriage was always a political ploy sold to people as a civil rights issue. Most gay people didn’t even care about marriage until they were told that denial of marriage was a denial of their identity. The desire for societal acceptance of homosexuality was a thing long before gay marriage ever became a thing. Gay marriage was a natural progression for the political machine that always needs a new cause to justify itself.
Even if I were wrong, it’s irrelevant because it ultimately became political the moment it entered mainstream conversation.
Civil Rights goes back to the Civil War, long before Russia became involved. The primary enemy of the civil rights movement were Democrat judges who upheld Jim Crow laws. The Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act, negating the power of these judges.
Of course Communists exploited the movement just like they exploit everything else, but that doesn’t mean the Civil Rights movement was Communist in origin or motivation.
It’s amazing, 10-15 years ago everyone online was telling me conservatives are backwards and authoritarian and trying to institute a Theocracy; now everyone is telling me conservatives are cowardly and weak and worthless.
It’s a shame all these critics of conservatism didn’t actually stand up and make a difference 10-15 years ago when it would have mattered… back when conservatives were the only ones standing up. Now that everything is going to hell, everyone on the right is blaming conservatives despite them being the only ones fighting for the last five decades.
If were talking about someone who actually raped a child, death penalty is 100% the right thing to do. If it’s abuse then it depends on the severity but death penalty should be on the table. If we’re talking about someone with those urges, they shouldn’t be prosecuted at all. Only actions should be prosecuted or we set a very dangerous precedent.
Actual life in prison is a more socially acceptable alternative to death penalty as long as it’s actually life and not 16 years with opportunity for early release on good behavior or some such nonsense (but of course this would never happen).
I would never go so far as torture but I don’t think you should have been censored.
The primary definition of homosexuality has always been sexual attraction to someone of the same sex [1] [2] [3].
You're trying to claim animals humping members of the same sex -- as well as members of the opposite sex and other species and inanimate objects and anything really -- makes them homosexual, when nobody would say the same thing about humans. At most we would call people who engaged in this kind of indiscriminate sexual behavior bisexual or pan-sexual.
Nobody claims men become homosexual when you put them in prison. It's acknowledged that the act of sex is often masturbatory and doesn't necessarily require specific sexual attraction.
If you can't see the difference then you're just being dense.
No I actually haven't made that assertion or alluded to it at all.
I didn't say you did, I said that's where your logic leads.
By what metric? What standard? And where does the theory of evolution make such a claim? You keep making this assertion with nothing to back it up.
If you want sources just ask. Google Stephen Meyer, David Berlinkski, James Tour and/or "evolution mathematically impossible" and you'll get plenty of resources.
You can start here if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
It happened and I pointed out where you can find evidence of how and why it happened over multiple fields of study.
We are debating the evidence. That's precisely what we're talking about right now. I'm saying the theory is full of holes (i.e. lacking critical pieces of evidence). These holes aren't even really denied by scientists on your side of the issue, they're just hand-waved away as inconsequential or unimportant (much like you're doing).
You're ignoring tangible facts and imperical evidence making this claim.
Unfounded.
Then point out the problems so they can be discussed. The issues you've brought up so far I've given examples of evidence that points to you being absolutely wrong.
I'm not prepared to give you a full dissertation on the topic; it's simply too massive and there are way too many issues to discuss. I also don't think you'll be receptive to it, so it would be a waste of my time. If you're really interested I suggest starting with the sources above and go down the rabbit hole from there.
You're using the word theory in the scientific definition when it fits your need and changing it to the colloquial version to also fit your need. It's not both. You're being disengenuius by doing this.
I'm not changing definitions.
Especially after I pointed it out. The fact that you still are doing it makes me believe you have no interest in an honest discussion.
What are you even talking about? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
Nah this is bunk. The fact is there is mountains of evidence for evolution and you clearly don't want to look into any of it. I've provided examples that you just ignore completely. You're going to need more than baseless assertions to make a claim such as evolution isn't real. Your argument thus far makes it seem that you don't even know what the theory of evolution asserts to be the explanation.
You don't know me so I don't really know how you can presume to know what I'm willing to, or have, done. I've been debating topics like this with people like you online and elsewhere since the mid-to-late 90's... most of my life really. Trust me, I've done my homework.
Honestly, most of your comments don't make a lick of sense, so it wouldn't surprise me if you're mistaking me for someone else.
That’s not the definition of homosexuality. Homosexuality is specifically about who you’re sexually attracted to. Animals can, and often do, hump inanimate objects. This doesn’t mean they’re sexually attracted to inanimate objects. I feel like we’re beating a dead horse on this though.
I love science; I have disdain for many of the people who do science, many of who are more interested in playing politics, gaining prestige and earning large government grants than actually pursuing the unvarnished truth.
I’m completely open to possibility that homosexuality is genetic, I’m just saying the evidence isn’t there despite everyone pretending it’s a settled question and the Left persecuting anyone who questions it. As I said, it doesn’t matter in the end, it’s just an example of the Left forcing the conclusion that fits their agenda regardless of the truth.
I don’t care how you are born, it’s how you live that will determine how you’re judged.
By your logic it’s possible to argue anything is possible given enough time and random chance. Even if that we’re true, the problem in this case is there isn’t enough time to accomplish everything evolution demands. You saying “but it happened” is just assuming the conclusion. The evidence for evolution is nowhere near as strong as you were led to believe and there are all sorts of problems with it that were glossed over and ignored for decades because academia hated Christianity and wanted desperately to distance itself from it.
As a theory it could still have legs if the glaring issues were addressed, but instead they just seem to just get worse the more we examine them, so at the very least it’s an incomplete theory (as it has always been). You’ll get your head taken off by academics, anti-theists and secularists if you even suggest such a thing though, as it’s taken on an almost religious importance in that community.
His point is you’re using a different definition of homosexuality for humans than you are for animals. Homosexuality in humans is exclusive, to the point of revulsion towards the idea of sex with the opposite sex in some cases.
All of your examples in nature are just animals humping each other and often anything else they can get their hands on including fire hydrants, tree stumps and even humans in some cases.
Gay marriage and the “Queer Revolutionary Movement” are one and the same. You need to understand who the people are behind the scenes pulling the strings. Gay marriage was never about a genuine concern for peoples rights like the civil rights movement was — it was a masquerade, a skin suit that mimicked the civil rights movement with the goal of creating a wedge issue that could be politically exploited and to further the agenda of demoralization.
Many “useful idiots” bought the bleeding heart justification for gay marriage and many probably had good intentions, but they were just being used and the rational arguments behind gay marriage never held water. But societal conditioning did its job and an activist judiciary gave them a win by overriding the will of the people who democratically decided to reject gay marriage through the state legislatures, similar to Roe v. Wade on abortion.
Blocking gay marriage wouldn’t have stopped Leftism, but it would have stopped that particular avenue of attack (sexual identity politics) and put a huge obstacle in the path of their demoralization agenda, ala. Yuri Brezmenov. It would also have improved society, or rather, acted as a bulwark against further degeneracy instead of further accelerating it.
It has never been shown to have a biological link, and there is actually plenty of evidence of a link to sexual abuse and trauma as a child. But even if it did have a biological link, it would make no difference. Many diseases and disorders have genetic origins and nobody would say this makes them good or that people should be proud of them or celebrate them. Just because something is genetic (I.e. you are born that way) doesn’t make it good, much less worth being proud of or celebrating publicly.
I’d say the fact that normalizing gay marriage has a huge negative impact on society is at this point nearly obvious. Does anyone really think the trans-agenda, gender spectrum “theory”, and burgeoning pro-pedophilia movements would be where they are today if gay marriage had been rejected?
Tribalism is so bizarre… why is it even a competition? People are compelled to pit group against group in competition when we should just acknowledge that we’re all capable of such atrocities given the right circumstances. The effort should be placed on preventing people from gaining such power to commit them in the first place. The problem are the ideologies that promise utopia in exchange for such power.
There is plenty of guilt to go around. Anyone claiming women are solely at fault are fooling themselves.
The problem is a sinful culture that engages in all sorts of immoral behavior and reaps the reward.
A significant amount of blame also goes to those who purposefully encourage and foster this culture from the outside and manipulate the victims of this culture for political gain.
Race really has very little to do with it. Outsiders to this culture — even those of the same race — regularly experience far greater success than those within it.