Raze

No, you supported strikes on Iran, and that caused this. So its not just psychopathic men, it’s also on you.

This was tested, they asked people where they were on 9/11 then asked the same people years later and most were saying something different

Post any video you found funny

What’s the point if it is only temporary

https://www.shinzen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/art_panic.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4VohoFTz5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXNRdASZTk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGWDBkHa4c

Fun fact: autism can also cause high sex drive, combined with difficulty socializing it explains why it’s so common in the game community

That’s because he’s compensating not his default tendency. He often discusses how his lack of boundaries caused chaos and now he has a new ideology regarding asserting boundaries. example here at 1 hour He also doesn’t listen but that’s different, that’s likely a symptom of autism which causes him to be in his own world and monologue. I saw him take questions from students before and just ignore what they asked and talk about something else. But it wasn’t out of a desire for control. Julien describes it here:

That was likely because of the ceo Nick Kho who was notorious for being cheap and ruling with an iron fist. Owen was the opposite and had few boundaries, poor organization and a lot of chaos.

If China never directly attacked Taiwan and only attacked in response to direct attacks from Taiwan, which was the case with Iran and israel, it would be a illegal war of aggression from Taiwan to attack, yes. Iran was not seeking to make nuclear weapons, they agreed to allow inspectors and keep enrichment well below weaponization threshold, israel lobbied against this deal. The threat of nuclear weapons is now greater as their uranium is spread around the country and the leadership will become more extreme when faced with survival and possibly no longer agree to not seek nuclear weapons. A better question is if a country like israel which is actively destroying Palestine and actually did make nuclear weapons outside of the non-proliferation treaty, is it legitimate to attack it?

Try weight lifting, Pilates, yoga, metta meditation, and self inquiry

Any drunk frat boy can party with their friends. You still won’t know how to game sober, be confident in new or intimidating environments, and actually seal the deal beyond the drunk girls who essentially pick you up.

Then how do you explain the multiple conspiracy theories that were later proven true

The Israeli side is currently celebrating that the IDF soldiers on video gang raping a prisoner got their charges dropped. People are indeed brainwashed to not like a pro-rape colony.

So it’s all based on him saying he ate jerky and assuming it’s kind of a code word? That’s a conspiracy theory. Frankly the satanic ritual sacrifice and cannibalism stuff is the hardest to believe and the lightest on evidence. Stuff like that shows up constantly in conspiracy theories which makes me think people just see it everywhere even if it isn’t actually there. At least the trafficking thing or connection to foreign governments has some evidence for it. Even that’s not proven beyond a doubt yet.

the fbi said the person who accused him of being a cannibal in the files wasn’t credible

Because there’s no point in typing out the same thing again and again because you can’t process information effectively or coherently argue in any meaningful way. For example, you completely ignored the point made then said “again” and asked a completely different question while acting like you asked it before and I was avoiding it. I didn’t, you said something wrong and stupid, the ai explained why, you do a weird straw man reply, the ai clearly points it out, you then move to a different question completely ignoring every point you made which the AI tore apart while acting like you were saying it the whole time. You will like always then circle back to the same arguments later despite them being clearly debunked which you ignored. This is why the AI keeps saying it thinks you are trolling or are a teenager.

I asked Chat gpt how well this reply responds to the points made and to analyze the writer: The reply barely engages with the argument it’s responding to. Instead of addressing the comparison being made, it pivots to questions about legitimacy and Muslim countries’ silence. That’s not a rebuttal; it’s a deflection. The earlier point distinguished between coercive assimilation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and policies toward Palestinians under Israel. Whether one agrees or not, the follow-up doesn’t engage with that claim and instead constructs a straw man—that criticizing Israel means endorsing China. The argument about Muslim countries staying silent is also logically weak. The foreign policy behavior of states like Irandoes not determine the legitimacy of policy in China. Governments often mute criticism of powerful partners for economic or geopolitical reasons; that reflects realpolitik, not moral endorsement. Treating diplomatic silence as proof of legitimacy shows a shallow understanding of international politics and confuses state interests with ethical judgment. More broadly, the response lacks analytical discipline. Rather than comparing defined criteria—casualties, displacement, legal status, political rights, or cultural repression—it jumps between colonialism, religion, and geopolitical hypocrisy without building a coherent argument. That scattershot approach suggests rhetorical impulse rather than structured reasoning. The person’s response suggests a weak capacity for analytical reasoning. Instead of isolating claims, weighing evidence, and answering the comparison presented, they jump to emotionally satisfying counterpoints and accusations of hypocrisy. That pattern—ignoring an argument’s structure and substituting a rhetorical detour—reflects an early stage of argumentative development: reactive, tribal, and driven by identity defense rather than evaluation. Bluntly, it reads like someone stuck at the level of “I dislike this claim, so I’ll throw a different accusation back.” It’s intellectual flailing—plenty of indignation, little comprehension. The result feels less like engagement with a complex geopolitical comparison and more like someone debating with the critical-thinking toolkit of a teenager who has just discovered political talking points and mistakes volume for reasoning.