Lkjhmnbv

10 ms·

31.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Creationism is not talked about in public schools. Biology and evolution are. I'm not sure you're proving the point you think you are. At least I don't understand how you think the dominant ideology which has displaced all ot
32.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Dissenters and outsiders who are refused entry cannot be the ones politicizing the issue. If they were, they wouldn't be impotent. It makes no sense.
33.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
You should read a source before you go looking for other people tearing it down. It ultimately makes you incapable of forming conclusions yourself. Also expecting others to prove to you why you should trust them but offering no reason for a
34.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Corruption is a bottom up process. It only works if everyone goes along. Be brave and stand up for yourself, what do you have to lose?
35.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
The rumor was bezos had to sign off on every pixel. Not sure if that's still true?
36.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Oh well. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
37.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
The reply stated: >and not creating incompatible technology which would ultimately be a dead-end. Why would the tech be a dead end if the Soviets won the cold war? I really don't understand how I'm the one spouting any idolatry
38.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Ever think that has to do with how it was handled politically? What assistance did these people get from the west?
39.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Notice how everything is a clone or stealing western tech, and nothing you said was pure innovation? What would their computing have looked like without the west?
40.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
What are your motivations for arguing this? By this definition my response to you is emotional labor and you owe me for that.
41.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
That is correct. You have no concrete examples of immorality, merely gross generalizations. When presented with cases showing that he is more moral than people you defend, you obfuscate and ignore and claim incredulity, because you have no
42.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Because it has no basis in reality, as evidenced by the fact that, in the examples provided, he's demonstrated more morality than anyone else in politics. I'm not really sure why this is confusing. If you think he doesn't thi
43.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Then you have to explain why he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did. Can you explain that? That's the part that makes your statment seem like neither of yo
44.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
I'm perfectly willing to entertain that notion. Explain to me how the parent could come to that conclusion by other means? Consider that this president has consistently used teddy roosevelt tactics to deescelate tensions in areas the c
45.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
So you agree with Steve Bannon. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're over generalizing. And you would never accept other generalizations like the one you're making. For instance the democratic party is goo
46.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
>Wall Street banksters who received big bonuses for packaging up mortgages they knew would not be repaid Who underwrite the loans? Who recommended the loans be written? The whole thing is complicated. A single article is nothing more tha
47.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
That is a very univariate understanding of what happened. I highly advise a more multivariate approach where the causes and effects are more deeply understood than spinning a story against one company, much less everyone who works at that o
48.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
They believe YouTube kids is possible if only YouTube were to censor more content. My argument is that more censorship won't help, because not everyone agrees on what is, and is not, kid friendly. So the entire enterprise is doomed to
49.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
And I said his problem is with YouTube kids not YouTube. Not sure what part of that you disagree with.
50.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
And since everyone is unreasonable you think someone should be in charge of deciding what's reasonable at the barrel of a gun. I really don't think you've thought your argument through.
51.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
How do you understand the arguments.
52.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
And you glossed over all of those things to make a politically convenient point. And I was just pointing that out. If you believe the latter I don't know what to tell you. Move to Detroit? The idea that less tax revenue is somehow good
53.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Your problem is still with YouTube kids and not with YouTube. Your entire argument is the filtration they tried failed. We agree. Great. My point is that the conclusion you draw is that everything needs more censorship. We disagree. I think
54.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
That's not true at all. If they make 1 new minimum wage job each, it would actually cost the city way more.
55.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
You're not entitled to have every community be in your image.
56.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
Your problem is then with YouTube kids, not YouTube. Not everyone wants their content censored by dogmatists.
57.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
The same way you prevent them from becoming progressice/racist trash bin worse than reddit. You let them speak and prove them idiots. It's really not hard. Unless you're constantly on the side that's losing, then it&#x27
58.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
He became a full professor of philosophy at 24. The youngest person ever. I'm stunned at your brilliance that you were able to reduce him to this comment. Thanks.
59.
by Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
The problem is individuals aren't objective. They're biased. You need other people to tell you when you're wrong. At least in part.